Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2019  with  funding  from 
Duke  University  Libraries 


https://archive.org/details/trialofjohnwilliOOwill 

/ 


.//.*.  75h_  —  ‘fPfc  '  A^.-  />  ■  ' 

TRIAL 


OF 

JOHN  WILLIAMS,  FRANCIS  FREDERICK, 
JOHN  P.  ROG,  NILS  PETERSON, 

AND 

XT 

NATHANIEL  WHITE, 

ON 

AN  INDICTMENT 

FOR 

MURDER  ON  THE  HIGH  SEAS  ; 

BEFORE  THE 

CIRCUIT  COURT  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES, 

HOLDEN  FOR  THE  DISTRICT  OF  MASSACHUSETTS, 

AT  BOSTON,  ON  THE  28th  OF  DEC.  1818. 


BOSTON  • 

PRINTED  BY  RTJSSELL  AND  GARDNER, 
PROPRIETORS  OF  THE  WORK. 


1819, 


DISTRICT  OF  MASSACHUSETTS,  to  wit  , 

District  Clerk’s  Office. 

BE  IT  REMEMBFRED,  That  on  the  thirty-first  day  of  December.  A.  D. 
1818,  and  of  the  Forty-third  Year  of  the  Independence  of  the  United  States  of 
America,  RUSSELL  and  GARDNER,  of  the  said  District,  have  deposited  in 
this  Office,  the  title  of  a  Book,  the  Rieht  whereof  they  claim  as  Proprietors,  in 
the  words  following,  to  wit : — “  The  Trial  of  John  Williams,  Francis  Frederick, 
John  P.  Rog,  Nils  Peterson,  and  Nathaniel  White,  on  an  Indictment  for  Mur¬ 
der  on  the  High  Seas  ;  before  the  Circuit  Court  of  the  United  £tate«,  bol- 
den  for  the  District  of  Massachusetts,  at  Boston,  on  the  28th  of  Dec.  1818.” 

In  conformity  to  the  Act  of  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  entitled  “  An 
Act  for  the  Encouragement  of  Learning,  by  securing  the  Copies  of  Maps, 
Charts  and  Books,  to  the  Authors  and  Proprietors  of  such  Copies,  during  the 
times  therein  mentioned  and  also  to  an  Act,  entitled  “  4n  Act,  supplemen¬ 
tary  to  an  Act,  entitled,  An  Act  for  the  Encouragement  of  Learning,  by  secur¬ 
ing  the  Copies  of  Maps,  Charts  and  Books,  to  the  Authors  and  Proprietors  of 
such  Copies,  during  the  times  therein  mentioned  ;  and  extending  the  benefits 
thereof  to  the  Arts  of  Designing,  Engraving  and  Etching  Historical,  and  other 
Prints.” 

JOHN  W.  DAVIS,  Clerk  of  the  District  of  Massachusetts. 


CIRCUIT  COURT  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES. 

MASSACHUSETTS,  OCTOBER  TERM,  1818,  AT  BOSTON. 


PRESENT, 

Hon.  JOSEPH  STORY,  Associate  Justice  of  the  Supreme  Court. 
«  JOHN  DAVIS,  District  Judge. 


THE  UNITED  STATES 
vs. 

JOHN  WILLIAMS,  JOHN  P.  ROG,  FRANCIS  FREDERICK,  NILS  PETERSON, 
alias  nils  pbterson  fogelgren,  and  Nathaniel  white, 
alias  NATHANIEL  WHITE  GLASS. 


On  the  14th  day  of  December,  1818,  the  prisoners  were  arraign¬ 
ed  upon  an  Indictment  for  the  murder  of  Thomas  Baynard,  su¬ 
percargo  of  the  schooner  Plattsburgh,  whilst  on  a  voyage  from 
Baltimore  to  Smyrna  ;  to  which  Indictment  they  severally  plead¬ 
ed  not  guilty. 

Samuel  L.  Knapp  and  Stephen  Hooper,  Esquires,  were  assignea 
by  the  Court  as  Counsel  for  the  prisoners  ;  and  this  28th  day  ot 
December  appointed  for  their  trial. 

The  Court  was  opened  at  1 1  o’clock  A.  M.  and  the  prisoners 
brought  in.  The  Clerk  then  asked  them  if  they  had  been  iur- 
nished  with  a  copy  of  the  Indictment  and  a  list  of  the  Jurors  two  days 
previous  to  this  ;  and  whether  they  would  challenge  the  J urors  by 
themselves  or  their  Counsel.  To  this  they  replied,  that  they  had 
been  furnished  with  the  Indictment  and  list  of  Jurors,  and  that  they 
would  challenge  by  their  Counsel.  The  Clerk  then  proceeded  to 
empannel  the  Jury.  As  they  were  called,  the  Counsel  for  the  pris¬ 
oners  inquired  of  them  severally,  whether  they  had  been  masters 
of  vessels,  and  being  answered  in  the  negative,  no  challenge  was 
made,  and  the  following  gentlemen  were  sworn  : — 
william  farnham,  Foreman, 


* 

W: 

ISAAC  APPLETON,  g- 

The  Clerk  then  read  the  Indictment  to  them  as  follows  :- 


NATHANIEL  BRADLEE. 
JOSEPH  CURTIS, 
EBENEZER  GOODRICH, 
LUTHER  EATON, 


ISAAC  VINTON, 
CORNELIUS  STONE, 
ELISHA  BARTLETT, 
AARON  BARKER, 
ROEERT  HARRIS, 
AMOS  ARCHER. 


UNITED  STATES  OF  AMERICA, 

DISTRICT  OF  MASSACHUSETTS,  SS. 

At  a  Circuit  Court  of  the  United  States  for  the  fir?*  Circuit,  begun  and 
holden  at  Boston,  within  and  for  the  aforesaid  District  of  Massachusetts,  on 
the  fifteenth  day  of  October,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  eight 
hundred  and  eighteen. 

THE  Jurors  for  the  United  States  of  America,  within  the  District  and  Cir¬ 
cuit  aforesaid,  upon  their  oath  present,  that  John  Williams,  late  of  Boston  afore¬ 
said,  Mariner ;  John  P.  Rog,  late  of  Boston  aforesaid.  Mariner ;  Francis  Frederick, 
late  of  said  Boston.  Mariner;  Nils  Peterson,  otherwise  called  Niis  Peterson 
Fosrelgren,  late  of  said  Boston.  Mariner ;  and  Nathaniel  White,  otherwise  called 
Nathaniel  White  Gla^-s,  late  also  ol  Boston  aforesaid,  Mariner;  not  having  the 
tear  of  God  before  their  eyes,  but  being  moved  and  seduced  by  the  instigation 
of  the  Devil,  on  the  twenty-second  day  of  July,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one 
thousand  eight  hundred  and  sixteen,  with  force  and  arms,  upon  the  high  seas, 
O'.t  of  the  jurisdiction  of  any  particular  state,  in  and  on  board  of  a  certain 
vessel  called  the  P  attsburgh,  w-hich  said  vessel  then  and  there  belonged  and 
appertained  exclusively  *o  a  citizen  or  citizens  of  the  United  States,  in  and  upon 
one  Thomas  Baynard,  in  the  peace  of  God,  and  of  the  said  United  States  then 
and  there  being,  on  board  of  the  vesse  aforesaid,  piratically  and  feloniously, 
wilfully  and  of  their  malice  aforethought,  did  make  an  assault:  And  that  the 
said  John  Williams.  John  P.  Rog,  Francis  Frederick,  Nils  Peterson,  otherwise 
called  Nils  Peterson  Fogelgren.  and  Nathaniel  White,  otherwise  called  Nathaniel 
White  Glass,  then  and  ther  upon  the  high  seas  aforesaid,  out  of  the  jurisdiction 
of  any  particular  state,  in  and  on  board  the  vessel  aforesaid,  then  and  there 
bel  ngtng  and  appertaining  exciusi’t  eiy  to  a  citizen  or  citizens  of  the  said  United 
States,  as  aforesaid,  piratically  and  feloniously,  wilfully  and  of  their  malice 
aforethouglu,  did  take  the  said  Thomas  Bavnard  into  both  hands  of  them,  the 
said  John  Williams,  John  P.  Rog,  Francis  Frederick,'  Nils  Peterson,  otherwise 
called  Nils  Peterson  Foselgren,  and  Nathaniel  White,  otherwise  called  Nathaniel 
W  hite  Glass,  and  did  then  and  there  piratically  and  feloniously,  wilfully  and 
of  their  ma  ice  aforethought,  cast,  thr.  w  and  pu.-h  the  said  Thomas  Baynard 
from  on  board  of  said  vessel  into  the  sea,  by  means  of  which  said  casting  and 
throwing  and  pushing  of  the  said  Thomas  Baynard  from  oi>  board  of  the  said 
vessel  into  the  se<t  aforesaid,  by  the  said  John  Williams.  John  P.  Roe,  Francis 
Frederick,  Nils  Peterson, otherwise  called  N  ils  Peterson  Fogelgren, and  Nathaniel 
White,  otherwise  called  Nathaniel  While  Glass,  in  manner  and  form  aforesaid, 
he  the  said  Thomas  Baynard,  in  the  6ea  aforesaid  and  with  the  waters  thereof, 
was  then  and  there  choaked,  suffocated  and  drowned,  of  which  said  choaking, 
suffoca'ing  and  drowning,  he  the  said  Thomas  Baynard,  then  and  there  upon 
the  high  seas  aforesaid,  and  out  of  the  jurisdiction  of  any  particular  state, 
instantly  died. 

And  so  the  Jurors  aforesaid,  upon  their  oath  aforesaid,  do  say,  that  the  said 
John  Williams,  John  P.  Rog,  Francis  Frederick,  Nils  Peterson,  otherwise  called 
Nils  Peterson  Fogelgren,  and  Nathaniel  W’hite,  otherwise  called  Nathaniel 
"White  Glass,  him  the  said  Thomas  Baynard,  then  and  there  upon  the  high 
seas  aforesaid,  out  of  the  jurisdiction  of  any  particular  state  as  aforesaid,  in 
manner  and  form  aforesaid,  piratically  and  feloniously,  wilfully  and  of  tiieir 
malice  aforethought,  did  kill  and  murder,  against  the  peace  and  dignity  of  the 
said  United  States  of  America,  and  the  form  of  the  Act  of  Congress  of  said 
United  States,  in  such  case  made  and  provided. 

And  the  Jurors  afore  .-aid,  upon  their  oath  aforesaid,  do  further  present,  that 
the  beforementioned  offenders,  after  lha  commission  of  the  aforesaid  offence, 
were  first  brought  into  Boston  aforesaid,  in  the  said  District  of  Massachusetts. 

And  the  Jurors  aforesaid,  upon  their  oath  aforesaid,  do  further  present,  that 
the  said  John  Williams,  Mariner,  John  P.  Rog,  Mariner,  Francis  Frederick, 
Mariner,  Nils  Peterson,  otherwise  called  Nils  Peterson  Fogelgren,  Mariner,  and 
Nathaniel  White,  otherwise  called  Nathaniel  White  Glass,  Mariner,  all  late  of 
Boston,  in  the  said  District  of  Massachusetts,  not  having  the  fear  of  God  before 
their  eyes,  but  being  moved  and  seduced  by  the  instigation  of  the  Devil,  on 
the  twenty-second  day  of  July,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  eight 
hundred  and  sixteen,  with  force  and  arms,  upon  the  high  seas,  out  of  the 


5 


jurisdiction  of  any  particular  state,  in  and  on  board  of  a  certain  vessel,  then 
and  th-re  belonging  nd  appertaining  exclu  ively  to  a  certain  citizen  or  citizens 
of  'he  United  States  nf  America,  called  the  Plattsburgh,  in  and  upon  one  Thomas 
Bay  ard.  in  the  peace  of  God,  and  of  the  said  United  States  then  and  there 
being,  piratically  and  feloniously,  wi. fully  and  of  their  malice  aforethought,  did 
make  an  assail  t  ;  and  that  the  said  John  Williams,  John  P,  Rog.  Francis 
Frederick, Nil-  Peter-on,  otherwise  called  Nils  Peterson  Fogelgren. and  Nathaniel 
White,  otherwise  called  N  athaniel  White  Gla-s,  with  a  certaiu  wooden  staff  of 
no  ■  e  which  each  of  them,  the  said  John  Williams,  John  P.  Rog,  Francis 
Fred' ri  it.  Nils  Peterson,  otherwise  called  Niis  Peterson  Fogelgren,  and 
Nathaniel  White,  otherwise  called  Nathaniel  White  Glass,  then  and  there,  in 
their  hands  re-pectively  had  and  held,  him  th  -  said  Thomas  Bayuard,  in  and 
Upon  the  head,  neck,  and  sides  of  the  said  Phonies  Baynari,  then  and  there, 
pir-  tically  and  feloniously,  wilfully  ond  of  their  malice  aforethought,  did  strike 
and  knock,  giving  onto  the  said  Thomas  Baynard,  then  and  there,  with  the 
wooden  stavts  aforesaid,  in  and  upon  the  head,  neck  and  sides  of  him  the 
said  I  homas  Baynard,  divers  grievous  wounds  and  bruises;  and  that  the  said 
John  Williams,  John  P.  Rog,  Francis  Frederick.  Nils  Peterson,  otherwise  called 
Nils  Peterson  Fogelgr-n,  and  Nathanie  White,  otherwise  called  Nathaniel 
White  G  ass,  then  and  there,  piratically  aDd  feloniously,  wilfully  and  of  their 
malice  aforethought,  upon  the  high  seas  aforesaid,  out  of  the  jurisdiction  of  any 
particular  state,  in  and  on  board  the  vessel  aforesaid,  then  and  there  belonging 
and  appertaining  to  a  certain  citizen  or  citizens  of  the  United  States  aforesaid, 
did  take  the  said  Thomas  Baynard  into  both  hands  respectively  of  them  the 
said  John  Williams,  John  P  Bog,  Francis  Frederick.  Nils  Peterson,  otherwise 
called  Nils  Peterson  Fogelgren,  and  Nathaniel  White,  otherwise  called  Nathaniel 
While  Glass,  and  did  then  and  there  piratically  and  feloniously  wilfully  aud  of 
their  malice  aforethought,  cast,  throw,  and  push  the  said  Thomas  Baynard  from 
on  board  of  said  vessel  into  the  sea,  by  means  of  which  said  casting  and  throwing 
and  pushing  of  the  said  Thomas  Baynard  from  on  board  of  the  said  vessel  into 
the  sea  aforesaid,  by  them  the  said  John  Williams,  John  P  Rog,  Francis 
Frederick,  Nils  Peterson,  otherwise  called  Nils  Peterson  Fogelgren,  and 
Nathaniel  White,  otherwise  called  Nathaniel  White  Glass,  in  manner  and  form 
aforesaid,  he  the  said  Thomas  Bayuard,  in  the  sea  aforesaid  and  with  the  waters 
thereof,  was  then  and  there  choaked,  suffocated,  and  drowned;  of  which  said 
striking  and  knocking  of  him  the  said  Thomas  Bay  nard,  by  the  said  John 
Williams,  John  P.  Rog,  Francis  Frederick,  Nils  Peterson,  otherwise  called  Nils 
Peterson  Fogelgren,  and  Nathaniel  White,  otherwise  called  Nathaniel  White 
Glass,  with  the  wooden  staves  aforesaid,  in  and  upon  the  head  and  neck  and 
sides  of  him  the  said  Thomas  Baynard,  and  of  the  aforesaid  casting,  throwing 
and  pushing  of  the  said  Thomas  Baynard  from  on  board  of  the  said  vessel  into 
the  sea  aforesaid,  by  them  the  said  John  Williams,  John  P.  Rog,  Francis 
Frederick,  Nils  Peterson,  otherwise  called  Nils  Peterson  Fogelgren,  and 
Nathaniel  White,  otherwise  called  Nathaniel  White  Glass,  and  of  the  choaking, 
suffocating  and  drowning  with  the  waters  of  (he  sea  aforesaid,  he  the  said 
Thomas  Baynard,  then  and  there,  upon  the  high  seas  aforesaid,  out  of  the 
jurisdiction  of  any  particular  state,  instantly  died. 

And  so  the  Jurors  aforesaid,  upon  their  oath  aforesaid,  do  say,  that  the  said 
John  Williams,  John  P.  Pi.og,  Francis  Frederick,  Nils  Peterson,  otherwise  called 
Nils  Peterson  Posjelgren,  and  Nathaniel  White,  otherwise  called  Nathaniel 
White  Glass,  him  the  said  Thomas  Baynard.  then  and  there  upon  the  high  seas 
aforesaid,  out  of  the  jurisdiction  of  any  particular  state,  in  mariner  and  form 
aforesaid,  piratically  and  feloniously,  wilfully  and  of  their  malice  aforethought, 
did  kill  and  murder,  against  the  peace  and  dignity  of  the  said  United  States,  and 
against  the  form  of  the  act  of  Congress  of  said  United  States,  in  such  case  made 
and  provided. 

And  the  Jurors  aforesaid,  upon  their  oath  aforesaid,  do  further  present,  that 
after  the  commission  of  the  said  offence,  as  aforesaid,  the  said  John  Williams, 
John  P.  Rog,  Francis  Frederick,  Ails  Peterson,  otherwi  e  called  Nils  Peterson 
FogelgreD,  and  Nathaniel  White,  otherwise  called  Nathaniel  White  Glass,  the 


G 


before  mentioned  offender?,  were  fir.'t  brought  into  tlie  District  of  Massachusetts 
aforesaid,  and  into  the  said  town  of  Boston,  in  said  District. 

A  TRUE  BILL, 

H.  DEARBORN,  Foreman. 
GEO.  BLAKE,  U.  S  Attorney  fur  Mass.  District. 

The  prosecution  was  then  opened,  on  behalf  of  the  United 
States,  by  George  Blake,  Esquire,  the  District  Attorney. 

May  it  please  your  Honors , 

Gentlemen  of  the  Jury , 

It  has  now  become  my  dutjr  to  lay  before  you  the  evidence, 
and  to  explain  to  you,  under  the  direction  of  this  honorable  court, 
the  rules  of  law  which  are  applicable  to  the  horrible  transaction 
described  in  the  present  indictment.  In  the  performance  of  this 
duty,  it  will  be  my  endeavor,  as  well  now,  as  in  every  subsequent 
stage  of  this  interesting  prosecution,  to  make  my  communications 
to  you  with  all  possible  plainness,  simplicity  and  truth,  being  in¬ 
clined,  most  certainly,  on  the  one  hand,  to  relax  in  nothing,  which 
properly  belongs  to  the  faithful  discharge  of  my  official  functions, 
and  on  the  other  hand,  to  set  down  nought  against  these  defend¬ 
ants,  hut  what  is  justly  due  to  their  character  and  crimes.  In  a 
word,  it  will  be  my  desire  to  represent  the  case  to  you  fully  and 
fairly,  and  to  do  nothing  more  than  assist  you  in  forming  just  con¬ 
ceptions  of  its  character,  according  to  the  law  and  the  evidence. 

I  am  the  more  particular  in  thus  declaring  to  you  the  disposi¬ 
tions  and  feelings  with  which  I  enter  upon  the  performance  of  my 
public  duties,  on  the  present  occasion,  from  the  consideration,  that 
the  case  is  one  of  most  unusual,  of  almost  unparalleled  enormity  ; 
and  hence  it  might  very  naturally  be  supposed,  that  I  should  even 
go  beyond  the  proper  sphere  of  those  duties,  in  my  zeal  to  bring 
down  the  vengeance  of  the  law  upon  the  heads  of  the  offenders. 
I  beg  leave,  gentlemen,  again  and  again  to  assure  you,  not  that 
my  mind  has  been  unmoved  by  that  just  indignation  which  every 
man  must  feel,  and  ought  to  feel,  in  regard  to  the  perpetrators  of 
crimes  of  such  atrocity,  but,  that  I  shall  abstain,  as  far  as  possible, 
as  I  sincerely  hope  you  will,  also,  from  the  indulgence  of  such 
feelings,  in  the  course  of  the  present  trial. 

There  are  moreover,  gentlemen,  several  circumstances  of  a  pe¬ 
culiar  nature,  connected  with  the  subject  of  the  present  prosecu¬ 
tion,  which  have  tended,  no  doubt,  to  produce  a  strong  impression 
on  the  public  mind  unfavorable  to  the  prisoners,  and  which  there¬ 
fore,  as  an  act  of  justice  to  their  cause,  I  deem  it  my  duty  to 
notice  in  the  present  early  stage  of  this  inquiry.  The  history  of 
the  schooner  Plattsburgh,  which  is  spoken  of  in  the  indictment, 
and  of  the  tragical  scenes  performed  upon  the  decks  of  that  ill 
fated,  vessel,  in  the  course  of  her  voyage  from  Baltimore,  in  the 
summer  of  1816,  has  long  since  been  a  matter  of  public  notoriety 
in  our  country.  If  you  are  in  the  habit,  as  most,  if  not  all  of  j  ou, 
undoubtedly  are,  of  looking  over  our  public  Gazettes,  it  is  alto¬ 
gether  improbable  that  the  repeated  statements  which  have  ap- 


peared  therein  relative  to  the  bloody  transactions  here  alluded  to, 
can  have  escaped  your  observation.  More  than  two  years  have 
since  elapsed,  and  no  circumstance  has  intervened,  tending  to 
mitigate  the  sensations  of  horror  and  indignation  which  the  bare 
rumor  of  these  scenes  was  calculated  to  awaken  in  your  minds, 
it  has  of  late  also  been  a  matter  of  publicity,  that  the  case  of  the 
schooner  Plattsburgh  had  been  the  subject  of  a  peculiar  memorial 
on  the  part  of  her  owner,  (a  citizen  of  Baltimore.)  to  the  govern¬ 
ment  of  the  United  States,  and  that  the  subject  having  been 
considered  by  the  President,  as  of  sufficient  importance,  in  a 
public  point  of  view,  to  justify  such  a  course  of  procedure,  ar¬ 
rangements  were  promptly  made  at  the  public  expense,  for  bring¬ 
ing  home  the  supposed  offenders  from  various  places  in  Europe 
where  they  had  been  apprehended,  in  order  to  take  their  trial 
before  the  proper  tribunals  of  our  country.  For  this  purpose,  it 
has  generally  been  understood,  I  know  not  precisely  on  what  au¬ 
thority  it  has  been  so  understood,  that  the  public  ship  of  war,  the 
Hornet, was  expressly  despatched  on  her  late  expedition,  to  a  port 
in  Denmark.  Suffice  it  to  say,  that  the  arrival  of  this  ship  sev¬ 
eral  weeks  since  at  the  port  of  Boston,  having  on  board,  and  in 
irons,  four  of  the  prisoners  whom  you  now  see  at  the  bar,  is  a 
circumstance,  of  which,  without  doubt,  you  must  heretofore  have 
been  apprized  ;  and  this  serves  to  shew  that  one  object  at  least, 
of  the  expedition,  must  have  been  to  bring  io  punishment,  men 
presumed  to  have  been  guilty  of  great  and  aggravated  offences. — 
All  these  circumstances,  I  cannot  doubt,  must  have  been  well 
known  to  you  at  the  time  of  your  being  summoned  to  the  trial  of 
the  present  cause,  and  that  their  tendency  must  obviously  have 
been,  to  produce  upon  your  minds,  as  well  as  upon  the  communi¬ 
ty  in  general,  pretty  strong  prepossessions  against  the  innocency 
of  these  defendants.  I  conjure  you,  however,  to  believe  me, 
when  I  say  to  you,  that  if  it  were  possible  for  me  to  derive  any 
support  to  the  present  prosecution  from  an  attempt  to  foster  and 
cherish  these  prepossessions,  1  should  disdain  such  an  attempt  from 
the  very  bottom  of  my  heart.  Besides,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  I 
well  know,  as  does  every  man,  in  any  degree  conversant  with  the 
course  of  our  Judicial  proceedings,  that  an  attempt  to  gain  an  as¬ 
cendency,  in  a  capital  trial,  by  means  like  these,  would  not  only 
be  useless,  but  worse  than  useless ;  that  it  would  most  inevitably, 
redound  to  the  utter  shame  and  confusion  of  the  prosecutor.  In 
other  times,  and  in  other  countries,  whatever  may  have  been  the 
instances  of  a  fellow  being,  on  a  trial  for  life,  having  suffered  in 
his  case,  from  the  influence  of  popular  feeling  or  prejudice ,  I  trust 
in  God,  that  an  example  of  that  kind  will  never  be  found  in  the 
annals  of  an  American  court  of  judicature. 

Considering,  indeed,  the  admirable  manner  in  which  the  judici¬ 
ary  tribunals  of  our  nation  are  constituted,  the  elevated  and  inde¬ 
pendent  character  of  our  judges,  the  intelligence,  rectitude,  and 


8 


purity  of  our  juries,  the  justice  and  the  mildness  of  our  laws,  it 
would  be  vain  to  expect  that  any  artifice  of  counsel,  or  any  cla¬ 
mour  of  the  multitude  could,  in  this  country,  and  in  this  court,  be 
successfully  employed,  to  bring  any  man,  however  obscure  his 
condition,  however  notorious  or  aggravated  his  office,  to  a  trial, 
under  the  weight  of  “  anticipated,  conviction .”  So  far  at  least, 
then,  as  may  depend  on  my  own  very  limited  influence  in  this 
cause,  the  learned  Counsel  for  the  Prisoners,  may  be  assured  that 
they  have  nothing  to  apprehend,  for  the  safety  oftheir  clients,  from 
any  of  the  circumstances  to  which  I  have  adverted  ;  that  they 
have  nothing  to  fear,  indeed,  from  any  other  cause  than  the 
weight  and  bearing  of  the  evidence,  as  it  shall  be  made  to  appear 
in  the  course  of  the  present  investigation. 

With  these  preliminary  remarks  which  have  appeared  to  me, 
gentlemen,  as  not  being  unsuitable  to  the  occasion,  I  now  pro¬ 
ceed  to  make  my  statement  of  the  case  which  is  about  being  sub¬ 
mitted  to  your  decision. 

The  indictment  is  for  the  crime  ofMurder,  committed  on  board 
a  vessel  called  the  Platsburgh,  “  upon  the  High  Seas ,  out  of  the 
jurisdiction  of  any  particular  state  and  it  is  founded  on  the  8th 
Section  of  the  Act  of  Congress,  of  April  30th,  1790.  For  the  com¬ 
mission  of  this  criige,  under  the  circumstances  alleged  in  the  in¬ 
dictment,  it  is  provided  in  the  same  section  of  the  Act,  that  the 
offender  shall  be  deemed,  taken  and  adjudged  to  be  a  pirate  and 
felon,  and  being  thereof  convicted,  shall  suffer  death  ;  and  fur¬ 
thermore,  that  the  trial  of  crimes  committed  upon  the  high  seas, 
or  in  any  place  out  of  the  jurisdiction  of  any  particular  state,  shall 
be  in  the  District  where  the  offender  is  apprehended,  or  into 
which  he  is  first  brought ;  and  that  District  is  alleged,  in  the  in¬ 
dictment,  to  be  the  District  of  Massachusetts. 

In  attending  to  this  indictment,  as  it  was  read  to  you  by  the 
Clerk,  3'ou  will  have  perceived  that  it  contains  two  several  inde¬ 
pendent  Counts,  or  statements  of  the  case ;  and  it  is  proper  for 
me,  at  this  time,  to  explain  to  you  the  grounds  upon  which  it  was 
deemed  expedient,  if  not  absolutely  necessary,  in  point  of  lawr,  to 
lay  the  charge  in  this  variety  of  modes. 

It  is  a  familiar  rule  of  law,  that  in  every  indictment  for  murder, 
the  manner  of  the  killing  must  be  described,  substantially,  in 
conformity  with  the  facts  as  they  shall  appear  upon  the  evidence. 
Accordingly  a  murder  by  poison  or  drowning  could  not  be  shown  in 
evidence  upon  an  indictment  allegingthe  death  to  have  been  occa¬ 
sioned  by  means  of  shooting,  or  the  infliction  of  blows.  Now  from 
the  evidence,  as  it  was  disclosed  before  the  Grand  Jur}'  at  the  find¬ 
ing  of  i  his  indictment, it  appeared, at  least  doubtful, w  hether  Thomas 
Baynard ,  the  person  alledged  to  have  been  murdered  by  the  de¬ 
fendants  at  the  bar,  came  actually  to  his  death  by  reason  of  the 
wounds  which  will  be  proved  to  have  been  inflicted  upon  him  w'hile 
on  boar.]  the  vessel,  or  whether  there  was  not  some  portion  of  life 
remaining  until  after  the  body  was  consigned  to  the  ocean.  For  the 


9 


sake  of  that  “  greater  caution ”  which  should  always  be  observed 
in  regard  to  a  process  of  so  serious  a  nature  as  the  one  now  in 
question  ;  it  was  deemed  prudent,  therefore,  to  set  forth  the  cir¬ 
cumstances  in  the  manner  adopted  by  the  indictment  ;  although  I 
apprehend,  that  the  description  which  is  given  of  the  manner  of 
the  killing  in  the  second  count  in  this  indictment,  will  be  found 
exactly  conformable  to  the  state  of  my  evidence. 

[Here  the  District  Attorney  read  to  the  Court  and  Jury  the 
section  of  the  act  of  Congress  upon  which  the  indictment  was  pre¬ 
dicated  ;  and  from  East’s  Pleas  of  the  Crown,  the  general  defini¬ 
tion,  at  common  law,  of  the  crime  of  murder.  At  the  same  time, 
also,  he  read,  from  the  last  mentioned  authority,  several  passages, 
relative  to  the  doctrine  of  principals  and  accessaries,  in  cases  of 
felony,  for  the  purpose  of  shewing,  that  all  who  are  present,  aid¬ 
ing  or  abetting,  &c.  &c.  by  word  or  by  deed  in  the  commission  of 
a  murder,  though  not  instrumental  in  the  actual  perpetration  of 
the  deed,  are  nevertheless  to  be  regarded  in  the  light  of  princi¬ 
pals,  and  should  so  be  described  in  an  indictment  for  the  offence.] 

These,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  are  the  only  portions  of  the  law 
relative  to  the  case  now  on  trial,  which  I  shall  have  occasion  to 
cite  to  you  throughout  the  whole  course  of  the  present  investiga¬ 
tion.  In  criminal,  and  even  in  capital  causes,  it  has  not  uufre- 
quently  occurred,  and  it  certainly  is  unfortunate  whenever  it  does 
occur,  that  the  most  perplexing  and  embarrassing  questions  in  the 
cause,  are  mere  questions  of  law,  arising  from  the  state  of  facts 
which  have  been  developed  at  the  trial.  Not  so  is  it,  and  I  de¬ 
rive  much  relief  from  the  circumstance,  in  the  case  now  under  con¬ 
sideration.  The  whole  law  of  this  cause  is  perfectly  plain ,  ecpress 
and  intelligible.  It  is  only  for  you  to  understand  that  the  statue  of 
the  United  States  has  denounced  a  punishment  upon  the  crime  of 
murder  when  committed  upon  the  high  seas,  under  the  circum¬ 
stances  set  forth  in  the  indictment ;  that  the  crime  of  murder  con¬ 
sists  “  in  the  unlawful  killing  of  a  human  being  with  malice  afore¬ 
thought,  either  express  or  implied,”  and  that  the  aiders  and  abet¬ 
tors  are  in  equal  guilt  with  the  immediate  agents  in  the  mischief ; 
and  I  will  venture  to  pronounce,  that  with  this  little  information  of 
the  law,  you  will  be  enabled  to  form,  with  as  much  promptitude, 
as  could  any  lawyer  at  the  bar,  or  even  any  judge  on  the  bench,  a 
correct  legal  decision  upon  the  facts  which  will  hereafter  be  sub¬ 
mitted  to  you  :  For,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  it  will  be  made  most 
apparent,  that  either  no  crime  has  been  committed  ;  that  the  evi¬ 
dence  which  will  now  immediately  be  laid  before  you,  is  entirely 
an  illusion,  a  fabrication  ;  the  mere  result  of  the  most  base  and 
wicked  perjury  ;  or,  that  the  case  on  trial,  is  no  other  than  a  case 
of  the  most  foul,  deliberate  and  diabolical  Murder  ! 

[Here  the  District  Attorney  proceeded  to  stale  to  the  jury  with 
much  minuteness,  the  whole  series  of  facts  and  circumstances, 
which  were  expected  to  be  established  by  the  testimony  of  the 


10 


witnesses  to  be  adduced  on  the  part  of  the  prosecntiou  ; — after 
which  the  witnesses  for  the  prosecution  were  called  and  sworn.] 
George  C.  Reed,  sworn. 

District  Attorney.  Have  you  the  command  of  the  Hornet  ? 

Witness.  1  have. 

Dist.  Att.  From  what  port  did  you  sail  last? 

Wit  From  Copenhagen. 

Dist.  Att.  Did  you  bring  the  prisoners  at  the  bar  to  this  port 
in  the  Hornet? 

Wit.  I  brought  home  four  of  them. — [All  except  Peterson.] 

Dist.  Att.  Is  Boston  the  first  port  in  the  United  States  at  which 
you  arrived  ? 

Wit.  This  is  the  first  port  in  the  U.  States  at  which  1  touched. 

Cross  Examined. 

Mr.  Knapp.  From  whom  did  you  receive  the  prisoners  at  Co¬ 
penhagen  ? 

Answer.  From  the  Judge  of  the  Police. 

Knapp.  Did  you  receive  any  papers  with  them  ? 

A.  No.  The  papers  were  given  to  Mr.  Forbes,  as  I  understood. 

The  Counsel  for  the  prisoners  admitted  that  Peterson  was  first 
brought  into  this  district  after  the  crime  was  committed. 

Isaac  Kim  sworn. 

Dist.  Att.  Where  you  the  sole  owner  of  a  schooner  called  the 
Plattsburgh  ? 

A.  I  built  her  myself,  and  was  the  sole  ownei\ 

Dist.  Att.  Are  you  a  citizen  of  the  United  States  ? 

A.  I  am. 

Dist.  Att.  Did  the  Plattsburgh  sail  from  Baltimore,  and  when  ? 

A.  I  commenced  loading  her  June  28th  or  29th,  1816,  and  she 
sailed  from  Baltimore  about  the  1st  of  July,  bound  for  Smyrna. 

Dist.  Att.  Of  what  did  her  cargo  consist? 

A.  Often  or  eleven  thousand  pounds  of  coffee,  and  forty-one 
or  forty-two  thousand  dollars  in  gold  and  silver. 

Dist.  Att.  Who  was  on  board  of  the  Plattsburgh  ? 

A.  William  Hackelt  was  the  master,  Yeiserthe  first  mate,  and 
Stephen  B.  Onion  the  second  mate. 

Dist.  Att.  Was  there  a  colored  man  on  board  ? 

A.  I  can  almost  say  that  there  was  a  colored  man,  the  steward, 
named  Samberson. 

Dist.  Att.  Who  was  the  supercargo  ? 

A.  Thomas  Baynard,  a  native  of  Maryland. 

Dist.  Att.  Was  William  Iiackett  a  citizen  of  the  United  States? 

A.  l  ie  was,  and  sailed  several  times  out  of  Baltimore. 

Dist  Att.  Have  you  heard  from  the  master  or  mate  or  super¬ 
cargo  since  the  Plattsburgh  sailed  ? 

A.  1  have  not,  since  they  passed  Cape  Henrv.  I  heard  of  a 
mutiny  on  board,  and  sent  to  Boston  to  inquire  of  the  master  of  the 
vessel  which  brought  the  intelligence  ;  and  soon  after  I  received  a 
letter  from  the  consul  at  Christiansand.  On  the  1st  of  April,  1817. 


11 


I  despatched  Mr  De  la  Roche  to  bring  the  vessel  home,  which  he 
accomplished. 

Dist.  Att.  Had  these  officers  families  ? 

A.  They  were  not  married. 

Cross  Examined. 

Knapp.  Are  you  in  the  habit  of  keeping  copies  of  the  shipping 
papers  of  your  own  vessels,  or  have  you  the  shipping  paper  of 
the  Plattsburgh  ? 

A.  I  have  not. 

Knapp.  Do  you  know  any  of  the  prisoners  at  the  bar. 

A .  I  cannot  say  that  Ido. 

Dist.  Att.  Do  you  know  the  names  of  the  crew  of  the  Platts¬ 
burgh  ? 

A.  I  of  course  saw  them  in  the  rolle  d’equipage,  but  I  cannot 
recollect  them.  The  master  told  me  he  had  got  good  men.  The 
officers  I  was  acquainted  with  personally. 

Capt.  De  la  Roche  sworn. 

Dist.  Att.  Did  you  go  in  quest  of  the  Plattsburgh  by  Mr. 
M’Kim’s  direction  1 

A.  Yes.  I  sailed  from  Baltimore  on  the  7th  of  April,  1817. 
I  found  the  vessel  atChristiansand  on  the  18th  of  June,  and  I  ar¬ 
rived  in  this  country  with  her  on  the  1st  of  September.  Christian- 
sand  is  about  60  miles  from  Mandahl. 

Dist-  Att.  In  what  condition  did  you  find  the  vessel  ? 

A.  She  had  been  new  painted,  and  the  main  boom  and  jib  boom 
were  newr.  She  was  in  good  condition,  and  only  wanted  caulking. 

Dist.  Att.  Was  she  a  new  vessel  ? 

A.  Almost  new. 

Court.  Did  you  bring  home  any  of  the  cargo  ? 

A.  No.  I  brought  some  empty  bags.  The  cargo,  or  part  of 
it,  was  sold  by  Mr.  Isaacson.  1  brought  home  from  him  an  ac¬ 
count  of  the  proceeds  of  part  of  the  cargo,  but  none  of  the  pro¬ 
ceeds  themselves. 

Cross  Examined. 

Knapp.  Did  you  not  sign  a  receipt  for  the  proceeds,  at  Chris- 
tiansand  ? 

A.  I  signed  a  receipt  for  money  I  received  for  the  use  of  the 
vessel,  and  at  Hamburg  I  received  the  proceeds  of  another  part 
of  the  cargo. 

Stephen  B.  Onion  sworn. 

Dist.  Att.  I  wish  you  to  state  particularly  and  deliberately, 
every  circumstance  within  your  knowledge,  relating  to  this  trans¬ 
action.  What  is  your  name  ? 

A.  Stephen  Burnet  Onion. 

Dist.  Att.  Where  were  you  born? 

A.  In  Hartford  County,  Maryland. 

Dist.  Att.  Have  you  a  family  ? 

A.  Yes.  I  have  a  brother  and  sister  living  in  Baltimore  ;  my 
parents  are  dead.  I  am  not  married. 


12 


Dist.  Alt.  What  has  been  your  course  of  life  ? 

A.  I  have  been  a  mariner.  I  have  sailed  out  of  Baltimore 

sin  e  1  was  fifteen  years  old. 

Dist.  Att.  Were  you  ever  before  in  the  employment  of  Mr. 

M'  im? 


A.  ’sot  before  this  voyage. 

D  st.  Att.  Did  you  ship  onboard  the  Plattsburgh; 

A.  Yes. 

Dist.  Alt.  When  ? 

A.  Before  she  sailed  from  Baltimore. 

Dist.  Alt.  In  what  capacit}'  ? 

A.  As  second  mate  and  boatswain. 

Dist.  Att.  Of  what  did  the  cargo  consist  ? 

A.  About  six  hundred  bags  of  coffee,  and  forty-two  thousand 
dollars  in  money. 

Dist.  Att.  Who  were  the  officers? 

A.  William  Heckett  was  master,  Frederick  Ingleheart  Yeiser, 
chief  mate,  myself  the  second  mate,  and  Thomas  Baynard  super¬ 
cargo. — The  cook  was  a  Spaniard,  and  Edmund  Samberson,  cap¬ 
tain’s  steward. 

Dist.  Att.  What  were  the  names  of  the  crew  ? 

A.  John  Williams,  Nathaniel  White,  Francis  Frederick;— 
Frederick  was  not  on  the  articles; — Stacey,  John  Smith,  Peter 
Peterson,  Johnson,  and  some  others ;  making  in  all  eleven  befor  the 


mast. 


Dist.  Att.  By  what  name  did  White  enter? 

A.  By  the  name  of  Nathaniel  White. 

Dist.  Att.  Were  the  men  at  the  bar  part  of  the  crew  ? 

A.  Yes. 

Covrt.  Are  you  positive  that  these  five  men  were  a  part  of  the 

crew  ? 


A.  I  am. 

Dist.  Att.  When  did  you  sail  from  Baltimore  ? 

A.  On  the  first  of  July,  1816. 

Dist.  Att.  State  particularly  the  transactions  which  took  place 
after  that  time. 

Wit.  We  dropped  down  to  Purchase’s  Creek.  Some  difficul¬ 
ty  arose  on  account  of  the  protections.  The  crew,  some  of  them, 
were  unwilling  to  weigh,  unless  the  captain  would  first  give  them 
their  protections.  On  the  fourth  of  July,  we  came  off  Cape  Hen¬ 
ry  Smith  was  ordered  by  the  chief  mate  to  sweep  the  deck;  he 
returned  a  saucy  answer,  and  said  he  meant  to  sweep  in  his  own 
country  fashion.  A  quarrel  ensued  between  them;  he  threw  the 
mate  down ;  I  went  to  the  assistance  of  the  mate,  and  then  told 
the  captain  what  had  taken  place.  He  came  upon  deck,  and  said 
he  would  knock  any  man  down  with  a  hand-spike,  who  should  offer 
resistance  to  the  mate.  We  went  on  peaceably  until  July  21st. 
On  the  2  1st  July,  at  12  o'clock,  M.  we  passed  St.  Mary’s.  This 
was  Saturday.  The  crew  were  divided  into  two  watches.  The 
first  watch,  under  the  chief  mate,  did  duty  from  8  o’clock  in  the 


13 


*■ 


evening  to  12;  and  mine  from  12  till  4  o’clock  in  the  morning. 
At  12,  I  was  called  upon  deck  by  the  first  mate.  As  I  came  up, 
I  heard  John  Williams  cry  out — “  sail  ho  !” 

Dist.  Att.  Is  Williams  among  the  prisoners  at  the  bar  ? 

A.  Yes;  he  is  the  short  one.  As  I  was  making  water  in  the 
waist,  I  saw  Frederick  between  the  camboose  and  mainmast.  I 
asked  him  where  the  sail  was  ;  “  go  forward,”  he  said,  “  and  I  will 
shew  you.”  I  did  so,  passing  on  the  larboard  side  ;  the  chief  mate 
passing  at  the  same  time  on  the  starboard.  The  chief  mate  passed 
over  the  boom,  and  came  by  my  side,  at  the  bow.  While  we  were 
looking  over  the  side  of  the  vessel  we  both  received  a  blow  at 
the  same  time.  1  did  not  know  at  first  what  struck  me  ;  I  sup¬ 
posed  it  was  the  foot  of  the  jib  which  struck  me  on  the  head.  I 
fell  upon  the  deck  and  immediately  scuffled  to  windward.  As  I 
lay  upon  my  hands  and  knees,  John  Williams  caught  me  by  the 
breast.  That  minute  I  heard  the  chief  mate  scream  murder. 
Williams  said,  “  here  is  one  of  the  damned  rascals — come  help  me 
kill  him.”  I  cast  my  eye  over  my  left  shoulder,  and  saw  some 
one  aiming  a  blow  at  me.  I  was  told  by  John  Williams — 

Knapp.  Stop — you  will  not  say  what  he  told  you. 

Wit.  I  lifted  up  my  arm  and  received  a  blow  on  it  which 
injured  it  very  much.  I  could  not  use  it  for  fifteen  days.  A  small 
piece  of  the  bone  came  out.  This  blow  knocked  me  down, 

Dist.  Att.  Who  stood  round? 

A.  Three  or  four — Williams  was  one. 

Dist.  Att.  Did  Williams  say  any  thing  ? 

A.  Not  that  1  heard. 

Dist.  Att.  Where  were  Baynard  and  Yeiser  and  Hackett  as- 
saulted  ? 

A.  Yeiser  was  knocked  down  forward.  The  captain  came  up 
and  said,  “  what’s  the  matter  forward  ?”  They  all  immediately  left 
me  and  jumped  towards  the  captain.  1  immediately  jumped  up 
and  passed  aft  on  the  larboard  side,  going  by  a  man  with  an  axe  on 
his  shoulder,  whom  I  took  to  be  Raineaux.  Daniel  Went  was  at 
the  helm — he  said,  “my  God,  Mr.  Onion,  what  is  the  matter  ?”  I 
told  him  I  could  not  tell  him.  I  then  went  into  the  cabin.  Mr. 
Ba}mard  was  then  just  out  of  his  birth  rubbing  his  eyes ;  Samber- 
son  was  lyingin  his  birth.  I  made  my  way  into  the  bread  locker. 
First  after  this  I  heard  them  call  Baynard  up. 

Dist.  Att.  What  words  did  they  use  ? 

A.  They  merely  called  him  up — they  said  the  captain  wanted 
him — Baynard  said,  “  where  is  the  captain?  I  want  to  put  on  my 
clothes.”  “  No,  no,”  they  said,  “  the  captain  wants  you  forward” 

* — “  No,  no,”  in  a  sharp  way  of  speaking.  I  then  heard  a  scuffle. 

Dist.  Att.  Was  there  a  light  on  deck  ? 

A.  Yes,  in  the  binnacle. 

Court.  Do  you  know  that  the  prisoners,  any  besides  Williams, 
were  on  deck  at  this  time  ? 

A.  I  do  not.  Directly  after  this,  two  of  the  crew  came  below. 
They  said,  “where  is  Onion?” 


14 


Dist.  Jitt-  Who  asked  the  question  ? 

A.  Williams.  They  all  asked,  one  of  another  ;  I  do  not  know 
who  in  particular.  Some  said,  “  he  is  overboard ;”  Frederick  said, 
“  no,  1  know  where  he  is,  he  is  in  the  locker.”  They  ordered  me 
out  of  the  locker.  I  began  to  beg  for  life.  They  then  had  a  con¬ 
sultation  about  throwing  me  overboard.  Some  said  yes,  and  some 
no.  Peter  Peterson  was  one — Francis  Frederick  w  as  one — John 
P.  Rog  one.  Peterson  was  in  favor  of  throwing  me  over.  He  said, 
“damn  him,  he’s  one  of  the  officers — throw  him  over  wi’h  the 
rest.”  Frederick  said,  “no,  he  is  a  clever  fellow;  he  will  take  a 
share  of  the  money  with  us ;”  and  Williams  said,  “  no,  no,  we  have 
shed  innocent  blood  enough — let  him  live.” 

Dist.  Alt.  Did  either  of  the  prisoners  have  a  musket  in  his  hand  ? 

A.  1  did  not  see  any  until  afterwards. 

Court.  Did  you  see  White  ? 

A.  Not  until  next  day. 

Court.  In  which  watch  was  White  ? 

A.  In  the  chief  mate’s,  from  8  to  12. 

Court.  Were  there  more  persons  on  deck  when  you  went  up, 
than  belonged  to  the  first  watch  ? 

A.  1  think  there  were  ;  it  was  about  the  time  for  changing  the 
wTatch. 

Dist.  Att.  Did  they  conclude  to  let  you  live  ? 

A.  Yes,  they  did.  Frederick  called  to  me  to  come  out.  Think¬ 
ing  they  meant  to  kill  me.  I  put  out  my  head  that  they  might  des¬ 
patch  me  if  they  would.  They  then  said,  “  damn  you,  come  out — 
what  are  you  afraid  of — we  are  not  going  to  hurt  you.”  I  then 
came  out ;  they  handed  me  a  glass  of  whiskey,  and  made  me  swear 
that  I  would  be  true  to  them  and  take  a  share  of  the  money,  and 
not  inform  against  them.  1  remained  below  until  next  morning. 

Dist.  Att.  Was  there  in  fact  any  vessel  ahead  1 

A.  No,  there  was  not. 

Dist.  Att.  Who  were  present  when  you  took  the  oath? 

A.  Williams,  Stromer,  Rog  and  Peterson  were  in  the  cabin  at 
the  time. 

Dist.  Att.  Did  you  hear  them  call  for  coffee  ? 

A.  No,  1  did  not. 

Dist.  Att.  When  did  you  see  White  ? 

A.  White  came  down  with  Stromer  about  4  o'clock  to  get  a 
glass  of  grog. 

Dist.  Att.  Did  any  conversation  take  place  between  them  ? 

A.  Yes,  they  talked  about  the  place  to  which  the  vessel  should 
he  carried.  White  asked  Stromer  where  he  intended  to  carry  her. 
Stromer  said  to  Norway;  White  said  they  had  better  go  to  South 
America  with  her.  Stromer  said  no,  that  he  had  been  a  trader  at 
Norway  before, and  was  acquainted  with  the  coast.  That  they  could 
carry  the  vessel  in  among  the  rocks  and  smuggle  the  cargo  without 
being  suspected.  After  this  they  went  upon  deck.  Between  9  and 
10  o’clock  Smith  called  me  up.  They  all  of  them  then  went 


15 


below,  broke  open  the  hatches,  took  the  money,  and  carried  it 
upon  deck. 

Dist.  Att.  Who  seemed  to  he  the  principal  man  among  them  ? 

A.  They  were  all  the  same  as  one  as  to  the  ordering. 

Dist.  Att.  Where  was  the  money  ? 

A.  In  the  run.  When  they  got  it  upon  deck,  they  broke  open 
the  boxes  and  divided  it  into  fourteen  shares,  measuring  it  out  at 
first  in  their  hats ;  and  at  last,  when  the  quantity  was  small,  in  a 
tin  pot.  When  the  division  was  made,  they  were  called  to  take 
their  shares.  Williams  said,  “  Onion,  there  is  your  share.”  I  said 
I  did  not  want  any  money;  that  1  was  thankful  for  my  life.  Rai- 
neaux  said  that  I  must  take  it,  or  they  would  serve  me  as  they 
did  the  rest.  Upon  this  I  took  my  share,  carried  it  below,  and 
put  it  in  an  open  chest,  without  counting  it,  where  it  remained 
until  we  arrived  off  Ireland. 

Q.  Who  acted  as  officers  ? 

A.  Stromer  acted  as  commander,  Williams  as  chief  mate. 
Stromer  and  Williams  and  Frederick  told  me,  if  I  would  do  my 
duty  as  before,  as  second  mate,  I  might.  When  my  money  had 
remained  sometime  in  the  open  chest,  they  asked  me  why  I  did 
not  take  my  money  and  count  it.  I  thought  it  might  be  suspicious 
if  I  did  not,  so  I  counted  it,  and  I  found  it  amounted  to  about  three 
thousand  dollars. 

Q.  Who  asked  you  the  question  ? 

A.  Stromer,  Williams,  Johnson,  Peterson  and  Smith,  several¬ 
ly  asked  me.  After  the  division  of  the  money,  the  vessel  was 
hauled  for  Norway. 

Q.  Did  you  hear  any  conversation  respecting  these  transac¬ 
tions  ? 

A.  I  heard  Peterson  and  Smith  one  day  talking  of  them.  Pe¬ 
terson  said  the  Captain  caught  him  by  the  jacket,  and  had  like  to 
have  thrown  him  overboard.  Smith  said  the  captain  had  hold  of 
him,  and  like  to  have  got  him  over,  that  he  got  him  half  way 
over  the  railing.  I  heard  Williams  say,  as  we  were  going  from 
Norway  to  Copenhagen,  that  if  he  lost  this  money,  he  wouid  get 
some  more  in  the  same  way.  At  the  same  time  he  told  me  that 
he  and  Francis  Frederick  had  shaken  hands  upon  it,  at  8  o’clock 
the  night  before  they  took  the  vessel,  that  they  wmuld  take  her 
or  jump  overboard. 

Wit..  I  heard  Frederick  say,  this  was  the  fifth  vessel  he  had 
served  in  the  same  manner.  Williams  at  the  same  time  said,  “I’ll 
be  damned  if  I  sail  out  of  the  United  States  or  any  other  port,  at 
fourteen  dollars  a  month.” 

Hooper  objected  to  an  examination  of  this  kind,  but  the  court 
overruled  the  objection. 

Wit.  The  next  day  after  the  killing  of  the  officers,  Rog,  who 
could  speak  but  little  English,  and  to  whom  we  had  given  the 
nickname  of  Yankee  Boy ,  was  cutting  capers  about  the  deck,  and 
said,  “  you  now  see  what  a  jmnkee  boy  can  do,”  referring  as  1 
understood  him,  to  the  part  he  had  taken  in  the  transactions  of 


16 


the  preceding  night.  Near  St.  Mary's,  Williams  was  near  the 
fire  with  a  cigar  in  his  mouth ; — I  spoke  to  him,  and  he  turned 
round  hastily,  and  I  saw  something,  which  he  dropped  in  the  fire, 
burn  blue.  Williams  after  the  transaction  of  the  22d  July,  told 
me,  that  he  intended  then  to  poison  the  officers  by  putting  poison 
in  the  coffee.  He  said  too,  they  had  laid  a  plan  for  binding  all 
the  officers  near  St.  Mary’s,  while  we  were  taking  the  sun,  and 
putting  us  ashore  in  the  boat;  but  that  their  hearts  failed  them. 
He  said  that  he  had  got  as  far  aft  as  the  camboose  with  a  seizing: 
in  his  bosom  for  this  purpose,  but  the  others  would  not  follow 
him,  and  he  was  obliged  to  give  it  up.  I  think  when  all  hands 
were  on  deck  he  said  this. 

Court.  Did  you  ever  hear  White  say  any  thing  to  shew  what 
part  he  took  in  the  transaction  of  the  22d  July  ?  Or  to  show  that 
he  was  led  into  it  ? 

A.  In  working  the  vessel,  White  was  as  active  as  the  rest ; 
but  he  always  told  me  that  he  was  innocent,  and  would  never  take 
away  a  man’s  life  to  get  money ;  he  said  he  was  afraid  to  resist  ; 
that  at  one  time  he  had  a  notion  of  informing,  but  did  not  dare  to 
do  so.  He  took  his  share  of  the  money. 

Q.  When  did  White  say  this  ? 

A.  On  the  day  when  the  money  was  divided  he  told  me  this. 

Q.  How  many  days  were  you  in  going  to  Norway  ? 

A.  Twenty-two  days. 

Q.  Was  any  alteration  made  in  the  papers  ?  . 

A.  Yes.  Williams  and  Stromer  directed  me  to  copy  the  letter 
of  Mr.  M’Kim,  and  consign  the  vessel  to  G.  &  G.  Myers,  at  Ham¬ 
burg.  Williams  altered  the  log  book,  making  the  vessel  bound  to 
Bremen  instead  of  Smyrna ;  cutting  out  the  leaves  containing  all 
that  had  been  written  from  the  time  we  passed  Cape  Henry,  up 
to  where  we  were  at  the  time  of  the  murder.  We  w  ent  to  a  place 
called  Cleveland,  in  Norway,  where  we  lay  four  or  five  days,  to  the 
best  of  my  recollection.  The  last  day  I  staid  on  board,  they  had 
a  notion  of  hauling  round  to  Mandahl.  That  morning  Williams 
asked  me  if  I  wanted  a  passage  to  Denmark ; — I  told  him  yes. 
He  told  me  to  put  my  things  on  board  a  vessel  at  Cleveland,  which 
was  bound  to  Copenhagen — a  boat  was  sent,  aud  I  put  my  things 
on  board— Williams  put  his  on  board  too ;  Samberson  went  with 
us.  We  sailed  for  Copenhagen,  and  had  a  passage  of  three  days. 

Q.  Where  were  the  rest  of  the  crew  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know.  They  were  on  shore  most  of  the  time 
we  were  at  Cleveland. 

Q.  Did  you  go  on  shore  then  ? 

A.  1  went  only  once,  and  then  Williams  went  with  me.  He 
kept  near  me  all  the  time,  and  would  not  let  me  go  two  yards 
from  him. 

Q.  Did  you  think  he  was  watching  you  ? 

A.  I  did.  At  Copenhagen  we  staid  fourteen  days  ;  Williams 
nnd  myself  at  (he  same  house..  Williams  fell  in  with  a  Captain 


17 


Nelson,  and  took  some  sugar  and  rum  of  him,  and  asked  me  if! 
would  not  take  some.  I  told  him  I  would.  He  said  we  could  go 
to  Christiana  and  find  a  vessel  for  America.  On  Saturday  follow¬ 
ing  this,  a  vessel  was  ready  togo  to  Christiana.  We  went  on  Sat¬ 
urday  night  to  get  a  pass,  and  were  then  taken  up  by  the  police 
and  put  in  prison. 

Dist.  Att.  Did  you  know  why  you  were  imprisoned? 

A.  I  did  not  know  why,  unless  upon  suspicion.  Williams  and 
myself  were  the  only  ones  imprisoned  that  night.  We  were 
examined  on  Monday  morning,  when  I  stated  the  whole  of  this 
business  to  the  police.  It  was  always,  from  the  first  moment,  my 
intention  to  make  a  disclosure.  At  Mandahl  I  was  so  much  in 
liquor,  I  could  not  do  it  then.  All  the  time  at  Copenhagen  it 
seemed  like  a  dream.  Williams  was  with  me  most  of  the  time. 

Q.  Were  you  examined  when  you  were  first  put  in  prison  ? 

A.  They  only  asked  me  where  I  was  bound,  and  what  my 
business  was.  I  was  kept  in  confinement  until  I  was  put  on  board 
the  Hornet. 

Q.  Where  was  Sarnberson  during  the  mutiny  ? 

A.  In  his  birth.  They  had  determined  to  spare  him.  The 
Spanish  cook  cried  a  great  deal  the  morning  after  the  affair,  and 
said,  “  O  !  my  God,  they  have  thrown  my  good  captain  overboard.” 
Peterson  and  Smith  talked  about  throwing  overboard — they  said 
the  mate  caught  hold  of  the  flying-jib-boom-guy,  and  they  had  to 
cut  it.  1  saw  it  was  cut. 

Q.  Did  you  see  any  blood  ? 

A.  Yes  ;  near  where  the  guy  was  cut  there  was  a  little  ;  Fred¬ 
erick  said  he  cut  his  thumb.  The  day  after  the  murder,  at  break¬ 
fast  or  dinner,  Williams  said,  that  the  captain,  when  he  was  thrown 
overboard,  cried  out,  either  “  Williams,”  or  “  men,  don’t  you 
know  me  ?”  Williams  replied,  “  yes,  damn  you,  to  my  sorrow.” 
Williams  said,  that  in  a  former  quarrel,  the  captain  threatened  to 
shoot  him,  and  he  owed  him  a  grudge.  He  said  he  had  been 
three  times  condemned  to  be  hanged.  Once  was  for  killing  a  man 
in  South  America.  Another  time  was  for  hanging  a  woman. 

Q.  Did  you  ever  after  that  night  see  Baynard,  or  Hackett,  or 
Yeiser  ? 

A.  No;  I  heard  some  of  the  men  say  they  were  overboard. 
I  often  heard  White  say,  when  he  was  trying  to  cheer  me  up, 
“  poor  fellows,  they  are  overboard,  but  there  is  no  helping  it 
now.” 

Q.  What  was  done  with  the  clothes  and  watches  of  the  mas¬ 
ter,  and  supercargo,  and  first  mate  ? 

Jl.  Stromer  and  Williams  divided  them  between  themselves. 

Captain  De  la  Roche  again. 

Dist.  Jltt.  Did  you  take  from  either  of  the  prisoners  a  pair  of 
pistols  ? 

A.  I  was  appointed  the  agent  of  the  executors  of  Capt.  Hack¬ 
ett.  I  called  at  the  police  office,  and  the  officer  asked  me  if  I 


O 


18 


Gould  identify  any  articles.  I  told  him  I  had  a  discription  of  a 
pair  of  pistols  that  belonged  to  Capt  Hackett  ;  the  officer  shewed 
me  a  pair  that  corresponded,  which,  he  said,  were  taken  lrom 
Williams. 

Knapp.  That  will  not  do. 

Dust.  Jitt.  Was  not  Williams  present? 
d.  iNo  ;  it  was  before  he  came  in. 

Onion  again. 

Dist.  dtt.  Had  Williams  a  Watch  with  seals? 

Ji.  Y  es. 

Q.  Did  one  of  the  seals  belong  toBaynard? 
d.  Yes. 

Q.  Could  you  identify  it  ? 

Ji.  Yes. 

[A  seal  was  brought  into  court  during  the  trial,  which  the  wit¬ 
ness  said  was  the  same.] 

Cross  Examination. 

Knapp.  Had  Williams  any  thing  in  his  hand  when  you  were 
struck  ? 
d.  No. 

Knapp.  What  was  the  weather  ? 

d.  It  was  a  dark  night — no  moon — it  was  a  drizly  rain — wind 
to  the  southward — had  been  northerly — cloudy. 

Knapp.  At  what  rate  were  you  sailing  ? 
d.  Between  five  and  six  knots. 

Knapp.  How  long  was  it  from  the  time  you  went  upon  deck  to 
your  getting  into  the  bread  locker? 
d.  About  thirty-five  minutes. 

Knapp,  llow  long  had  you  been  there  when  you  were  called 
out? 

d.  About  ten  minutes. 

Knapp.  Where  did  Baynard  and  Samberson  sleep? 
d.  Baynard  on  the  larboard  side  of  the  cabin,  and  Samberson 
abaft  the  binnacle. 

Knapp.  Was  there  any  light  on  deck  except  in  the  binnacle  ? 
d.  No. 

Knapp.  Was  there  a  light  in  the  cabin  ? 
d.  Yes  on  the  table. 

Knapp.  Had  you  any  apprehension  of  danger  after  this  trans¬ 
action  ? 

d.  I  went  on  from  day  to  day  in  dread  of  my  life. 

Knapp.  Did  you  not  act  as  mate  to  give  orders  ? 
d.  Stromer  was  the  principal  man,  and  Williams  the  second. 

I  went  on  the  same  as  before. 

Knapp.  Did  you  know  that  Stromer  understood  navigation? 
d.  Not  before. 

Knapp.  How  often  were  you  on  shore  in  Norway  ? 
d.  Once  only,  and  then  but  two  or  three  hours. 

Knapp.How  long  was  your  passage  fromNorway  toCopenhagen  ? 


19 


A.  Three  days. 

Knapp.  How  long  were  you  at  Copenhagen  ? 

A.  Fourteen  days. 

Knapp.  What  reason  have  you  for  not  making  a  disclosure  in 
Copenhagen  ? 

A.  I  drank  too  much  and  was  a  stranger,  and  was  ignorant  how 
to  proceed,  having  never  been  concerned  in  any  thing  of  the  kind 
before. 

Knapp.  What  became  of  your  money  ? 

A.  It  remained  at  my  boarding  house. 

Knapp.  By  what  name  did  you  go  at  Copenhagen? 

A.  I  passed  under  the  name  of  Yeiser.  I  had  lost  my  pro¬ 
tection.  Williams  told  me  to  pass  for  Yeiser  and  take  his  pros- 
tection,  which  he  gave  me. 

Knapp.  Was  not  Williams  drunk  when  he  made  these  swag¬ 
gering  confessions  of  murders  ? 

A.  Not  that  I  know  of. 

Knapp.  Did  you  not  feel  afraid  then  of  his  hanging  you  next  ? 

A.  I  hardly  know  how  I  felt. 

Knapp.  How  came  he  to  place  so  much  confidence  in  you  at 
Copenhagen,  as  to  tell  you  of  his  murders,  when  at  Cleveland  he 
watched  you  so  narrowly  ? 

A  He  told  them  before  we  arrived  at  Cleveland. 

Q.  Why  did  you  engage  in  trade  with  Williams  ? 

A.  He  said  it  would  be  a  good  speculation  ;  so  I  took  six 
hogsheads  of  rum  and  six  of  sugar. 

Knapp.  Did  Samberson  divide  the  money  ? 

A.  I  do  not  know  ; — he  took  his  share.  We  kept  up  a  cheer¬ 
ful  face  to  avoid  suspicion. 

Knapp.  Do  you  know  what  Samberson’s  thoughts  were  ? 

A.  I  do  not. 

Knapp.  Did  you  receive  any  of  the  captain’s  clothes,  or  did 
Samberson  ? 

A.  I  did  not.  I  saw  Samberson  with  two  p  ur  of  boots.  He 
took  the  chief  mate’s  trunk  and  clothes. 

Knapp.  Could  you  have  made  your  escape  ? 

A.  1  had  an  opportunity,  had  1  been  sober. 

Knapp.  Did  Williams  know  any  thing  of  navigation,  and  was 
he  sober  ? 

A.  He  was  sometimes  sober,  and  sometimes  in  liquor.  He 
did  not  understand  navigation. 

Knapp.  Did  you  not  come  out  of  the  bread  locker  drunk  ? 

A.  1  had  drank  some  brandy ;  but  how  I  got  it,  I  do  not  know. 

Knapp.  Did  you  not  take  the  decanter  of  brandy  into  the 
locker  with  you  ? 

A.  I  did. 

Dist.  Att.  Why  did  you  drink  the  brandy  ? 

A.  On  account  of  my  fears. 

Knapp.  Whom  did  you  see  when  you  came  on  deck  that  uight'? 


20 


A.  Williams,  Frederick  and  Raineaux,  by  the  camboose. 

Knapp.  Did  you  not  open  the  boxes  of  silver  with  the  axe  ? 

a.  No. 

Knapp.  Who  divided  the  money  ? 

A.  Williams  and  Stromer  and  Smith. 

Knapp.  Who  told  you  about  the  poison  and  the  binding1  the 
officers. 

A.  Williams  told  me  it  was  poison  that  was  put  in  the  coffee, 
and  he  told  me  about  the  binding. 

Knapp.  What  papers  did  you  alter  ? 

A  1  only  copied  the  letter  of  Mr.  M’Kim. 

Knapp.  Did  you  not  show  Williams  how  to  keep  a  log  book  ? 

A.  No  ;  Stromer  did. 

Knapp.  Did  you  take  a  watch  from  Yeiser? 

A.  No.  They  gave  it  to  me. 

Knapp.  Had  you  it  in  Copenhagen  ? 

A.  Yes. 

Edmund  Samberson  sworn. 

Witness.  I  was  born  in  Philadelphia — am  twenty  nine  years 
eld — have  sailed  out  of  Philadelphia  eight  years — was  the  steward 
of  Capt.  Hackett  in  this,  and  in  a  former  voyage — was  on  board  of 
the  schooner  Plattsburgh  in  July,  1816 — William  Hackett  was  mas¬ 
ter,  Frederick  Inglehart  Yeiser  mate,  and  Stephen  B.  Onion  second 
mate.  The  vessel  had  coffee  on  board.and  42,000  dollars  in  money. 
She  sailed  the  first  of  July  bound  to  Smyrna.  In  the  bay,  on  the 
second  day,  there  was  a  dispute  between  the  mate  and  some  of  the 
crew. —  Smith  and  Williams  and  others.  The  captain  was  below — I 
told  him  what  was  the  matter.  He  came  up  and  said  he  would 
knock  down  with  a  handspike  the  first  man  who  struck  an  officer. 
There  was  some  difficulty  about  the  protections  soon  after  we  left 
Baltimore.  Some  of  the  crew  wanted  them  before  the  captain  was 
willing  to  give  them  over  to  them.  The  captain  gave  them  their 
protections.  The  prisoners  at  the  bar  were  a  part  of  the  crew. 
There  was  a  plan  to  take  the  vessel.  White  knew  of  it,  but 
would  not  inform.  Some  days  after,  ten  or  twelve  days,  we  pass¬ 
ed  St.  Mary’s ;  1  heard  a  noise  upon  deck.  I  heard  the  voice  of 
Williams  ;  he  said,  “you  damned  son  of  a  bitch,  come  on  deck.” 
He  did  not  call  any  one  by  name.  I  saw  Baynard  in  the  cabin 
rubbing  his  eyes.  1  did  not  speak  to  him,  nor  he  to  me.  I  at¬ 
tempted  to  go  on  deck,  and  saw  persons  as  thick  as  they  could 
stand  about  the  companion  way.  I  attempted  twice  to  go  up, 
but  started  back.  J  ohn  Smith  says,  “  come  up,  you  damned  son  of  a 
bitch, you  have  made  your  fortune  when  you  don’t  know  it.”  I  then 
went  higher,  and  they  caught  hold  of  me  and  drew  me  up  by  force. 
Stromer  was  one.  They  ordered  me  forward.  1  went  as  far  as  the 
main  mast,  and  came  back  again.  I  looked  under  the  main  boom, 
and  saw  the  supercargo  lying  on  his  back.  There  was  a  light  in  the 
binnacle.  1  heard  the  sailors  speak  to  Baynard  to  come  upon  deck, 
“  they  would  not  hurt  him.”  When  1  got  aft,  I  saw  him  lying  his 


21 


whole  length  on  the  starboard  side.  He  was  then  seized  by  Wil¬ 
liams,  and  if  I  am  not  mistaken,  by  Aleck,  who  was  sometimes 
called  Jans  R.og,  and  thrown  overboard.  The  quarter  was  crowded, 
all  were  there  except  the  cook  and  second  mate.  In  less  than  two 
minutes  I  heard  the  voice  of  Baynard  in  the  water.  I  went  for¬ 
ward  and  asked  the  cook  what  was  the  matter  ;  he  said,  he  did  not 
know.  He  was  crying.  I  went  aft  and  asked  liberty  of  Stromer 
and  Williams  to  get  my  shoes  and  hat,  in  the  cabin ;  they  said  I 
should  not.  Stromer  wanted  the  captain’s  pistols ;  1  told  him  1  did 
not  know  where  they  were  ;  he  called  me  a  damned  liar — I  said  I 
did  not  know.  I  went  forward.  Williams  told  me  if  1  did  not 
work  the  ship.  I  should  share  the  fate  of  the  others.  1  laid  hold  of 
the  top  sail  brace,  White  took  hold  of  the  fore  brace.  White  said 
nothing.  Williams  had  the  chief  command.  He  jumped  round  the 
larboard  side  of  the  camboose,  and  said,  “  bear  a  hand,  boys,  the 
ship  is  ours.”  I  got  leave  to  go  down.  Frederick  was  in  the 
?.abin  with  a  musket  in  his  hand;  some  of  them  came  down. 

Dist.  Jltt.  What  was  he  doing  with  the  musket  ? 

Witness.  They  were  looking  for  the  second  mate.  The  mus- 
cet  was  cocked.  Frederick  asked  me  for  the  keys — T  hey  called 
iut,  u  on  deck  there,  send  down  the  studding  sail  hailyards,  and  let 
is  hunt  the  bugger  out.”  White,  Peterson,  Smith,  Johnson  and 
■taineaux  came  down.  They  opened  the  captain’s  locker,  and 
ound  the  mate.  They  made  him  come  out;  he  begged  for  his 
ife.  They  consulted  together,  and  concluded  to  spare  his  life. 
The  mate  says  to  Frederick,  “1  am  thankful  o  you,  you  have 
aved  my  life.”  This  was  his  conversation  the  whole  passage. 
'Tederick  and  Williams  were  in  favor  of  the  mate’s  life  being 
pared ; — this  I  learned  afterwards.  I  did  not  hear  the  particu- 
ars  of  the  conversation  at  this  time.  I  was  afraid  to  speak.  Stro- 
ner  told  me  to  draw  some  liquor.  They  made  the  mate  and  me 
it  down  and  drink,  and  told  us  not  to  be  frightened,  u  they  would 
lot  hurt  us.”  After  twice  drawing  liquor  for  them,  Stromer  told  me 
o  make  some  coffee  ; — White  said  “  it  was  damned  nonsense,  they 
lid  not  want  any.”  None  was  made.  They  told  the  mate  and  me, 
hat  we  might  continue  in  the  same  capacities.  The  mate  did 
o.  Stromer  ordered  me  to  kill  a  pig  and  have  breakfast  early 
ext  morning  in  order  to  share  the  money.  Williams,  Stromer  and 
Union  were  at  breakfast  in  the  cabin,  and  I  tended.  Williams  and 
tromer  were  talking  over  what  took  place  the  night  before. 
Villiams  said  the  captain  came  up  and  asked  what  was  the  matter. 
Villiams  answered,  “  you  damned  rascal,  1  will  let  you  know.” 
Williams  said  that  when  he  had  hold  of  the  captain  to  throw  him 
verboard,  the  captain  said,  “  Bill,  don’t  you  know  me  ?”  he  an¬ 
gered  u  yes,  you  damned  rascal,  to  my  sorrow.”  Williams  said 
e  would  never  work  for  fourteen  dollars  a  month,  when  he  could 
lake  three  thousand.  Afterwards  the  money  was  divided.  Wil- 
ams  said  he  had  a  grudge  against  the  captain,  because  in  a  for- 
ler  voyage  he  had  bad  bread,  and  he  complained  of  it,  and  the 


22 


captain  quarrelled  with  him,  and  threatened  to  shoot  him.  The 
boxes  of  money  were  all  broke  open.  It  seems  to  me  all  hands 
were  employed  in  bringing  the  money  on  deck.  White  passed  it 
out  of  the  cock-pit.  It  was  divided  in  bags,  and  after  a  bag  was 
set  apart  for  each  man  the  residue  was  measured  in  tin  pots.  On¬ 
ion  was  called  first  to  take  his  share  ;  myself  next.  Some  of  them 
took  their  shares  in  their  hats.  Afterwards  we  rpade  all  sail  for 
Norway.  Stromer  was  made  captain,  Williams  first  mate.  On¬ 
ion  on  receiving  his  share  of  the  money  said,  “it  was  handsome, 
he  had  not  had  so  much  for  a  long  time.”  We  made  land  in  fifteen 
days.  Some  were  for  taking  a  boat  to  go  to  Scotland,  some  to 
England,  and  some  to  Norway.  We  took  two  fishermen  on  board 
as  pilots,  and  Stromer  desired  to  be  carried  to  a  place  where  there 
was  no  consul. 

Knapp.  Did  Onion  say  he  was  thankful  for  his  life,  at  the  time 
he  received  his  share  ? 

Ji.  No,  but  several  times  during  the  voyage.  When  I  went  on 
deck,  I  passed  close  by  Reg,  standing  by  the  windlass.  Williams 
frequentty  talked  of  his  adventures.  About  his  being  accused  ol 
murdering  his  sweatheart.  Stromer  said  he  gave  Williams  poison 
to  put  into  the  coffee,  and  Williams  said  he  put  it  in,  but  it  was  nol 
strong  enough.  The  captain,  supercargo  and  mate  complainec 
of  the  coflee,  and  had  to  take  medicine;  and  they  thought  hart 
of  me.  The  crew  were  laughing.  On  deck  I  heard  some  one 
of  the  sailors  speak  of  binding  the  officers  off  St.  Mary’s.  Some-i 
tiling  was  said  a!  ut  Stromer’s  having  been  looking  out  for  a  ves¬ 
sel  like  this  for  three  months. 

Dut.  Att.  Did  you  hear  any  thing  about  cutting  the  guy  ? 

Ji.  No.  Stromer  and  Rog  talked  together  in  an  unknown  lan 
guagc  ;  Jans  Rog  told  Stromer  what  port  to  go  to.  The  fisher¬ 
men  said  they  would  carry  us  to  Mandahl.  l'he  custom  house  of¬ 
ficers  came  off,  and  put  a  quarantine  flag  on  board.  The  papers 
were  not  altered  until  we  arrived  at  Mandahl,  Stromer  was  call¬ 
ed  Hackett,  and  Williams  went  by  the  name  of  Yeiser,  and  Onior 
by  his  own  name.  Some  names  were  rubbed  out;  there  were 
seventeen  in  number  at  first.  1  stood  near  and  saw  them  altering 
the  papers. 

Dist.  Att.  Can  you  read  writing  ? 

A.  I  cannot^  I  went  to  the  consul’s  house  to  tell  him  the  cir 
cumstances.  The  clerk  said  he  was  not  at  home.  I  went  the 
next  day  again,  and  then  I  saw  Smith  and  Stacey  and  Williams  anc 
Raineaux  and  Went  near  there.  I  left  the  vessel  the  day  after  sh( 
was  taken  to  Mandahl,  and  went  in  a  fishing  vessel  toCopenhager 
with  Williams  and  Onion.  On  onr  arrival  I  went  to  the  same 
boarding  house  with  Williams  and  Onion,  but  they  would  not  le' 
me  staj'  there.  W  hen  I  had  been  in  Copenhagen  about  three  weeki 
the  commissary  of  police  sent  for  me  one  morning  at  about  tm 
o’clock.  1  went  to  him,  and  he  inquired  what  was  my  business  ant 
who  Williams  and  Onion  were  ;  1  told  him  i  had  no  particular  busi 


23 


ness,  that  I  was  waiting  for  my  eye  to  get  well ;  I  disclosed  all  the  » 
circumstances  of  the  transactions  of  the  22d  July.  Ke  asked  me 
if  any  more  of  the  crew  were  in  Copenhagen  besides  Williams 
and  Onion.  I  told  him  Rog  was  there.  He  sent  three  officers 
with  me,  and  I  carried  them  to  Rog’s  lodgings.  They  took  him 
and  his  effects  to  the  Police  office.  One  end  of  his  trunk  was  heavy. 

Dist.  Att.  Do  you  know  how  the  police  got  information  ? 

A.  I  do  not,  but  I  understood  they  had  heard  of  an  American 
vessel  being  deserted  by  the  crew.  Williams  was  going  to  sail 
the  next  daj',  and  went  to  the  consul  for  his  pass ;  he  called  him¬ 
self  a  merchant.  The  consul  gave  him  a  line  to  the  police  requesting 
them  to  arrest  him.  Williams,  Onion  and  Rog  were  then  taken  up. 

Dist.  Att.  Were  you  and  Onion  confined  separately  ? 

A.  We  were  for  about  two  months.  Then  we  were  put  to¬ 
gether  until  we  fell  to  fighting.  Wre  could  talk  with  each  other 
from  the  windows  when  we  were  separated. 

Dist.  Att.  Was  any  oath  of  secrecy  taken  by  Onion,  on  board 
the  Plattsburgh  ? 

A.  I  do  not  recollect  it ;  if  any  was  administered,  I  was  not 
present. 

Dist.  Att.  Was  Onion’s  arm  much  injured  ? 

A.  Onion  had  his  arm  wounded,  with  an  axe,  as  he  said,  and 
was  confined  in  the  bed  room. 

Dist.  Att.  Did  you  ever  hear  any  one  of  the  prisoners  deny 
that  he  was  engaged  in  the  mutiny  ? 

A.  I  never  did.  Two  days  after  it  happened  Jans  Rog  jump¬ 
ed  up  and  struck  his  heels  together,  and  said,  “  he  struck  the  son 
of  a  bitch  ( Baynard )  with  a  stone  in  a  stocking.” 

Court.  Did  White  appear  to  be  engaged  in  it  ? 

A.  I  did  not  see  him  engaged,  and  1  did  not  hear  him  say  any 
thing  in  particular.  He  appeared  more  mild  than  the  others.  He 
said  one  day,  on  deck,  that  he  knew  of  the  conspiracy,  but  would 
not  give  information  of  it. 

Cross  Examined. 

Knapp.  Whom  did  you  see  first,  when  you  came  on  deck,  on 
the  22d  July  ? 

A.  I  saw  Stromer,  Rog,  White  and  Williams. 

Knapp.  At  what  time  did  you  have  breakfast  that  day  ? 

A.  At  half-past  eight. 

Knapp.  At  what  time  did  you  see  White  on  deck  in  the  night. 

A-  At  about  quarter-past  twelve. 

Knapp.  Did  he  say  any  thing  ? 

A.  1  did  not  hear  him  say  any  thing  that  night. 

Knapp.  Who  came  into  the  cabin  to  search  the  bread  locker  ? 

A.  Smith,  Peterson  and  White  came  down. 

Knapp.  What  did  White  say  ? 

A.  He  was  laughing  and  talking,  but  he  said  nothing  about 
killing  Onion  or  sparing  his  life. 

Knapp.  Had  you  any  of  the  Captain’s  clothes  1 

A.  I  had  a  coat  and  pair  of  pantaloons,  only. 


24 


Knapp.  How  many  pair  of  boots  had  you  ? 

A.  I  had  two  pair  ;  which  were  given  me  in  Baltimore. 

Knapp.  You  were  unable  at  Mandahl  to  give  information  be¬ 
cause  some  of  the  crew  were  at  the  consul’s.  Were  you  watch¬ 
ed  in  Copenhagen  by  Williams  and  Onion  ? 

A.  I  was  not.  1  clid  not  think  it  worth  while  to  inform  at  Co¬ 
penhagen,  because  the  crew  were  dispersed  in  different  places; 
and  Williams  and  Onion  had  sworn,  that  any  one  who  opened  his 
lips,  should  lose  his  life. 

Knapv.  Why  were  you  anxious  to  make  a  disclosure  at  Man¬ 
dahl,  and  not  so  at  Copenhagen  ? 

A.  Because  all  the  crew  might  have  been  arrested  at  once  ; 
at  Mandahl. 

Knapp.  How  many  might  have  been  seized  at  Copenhagen  ? 

A.  Four. 

Knapp  Four  then  were  not  worth  taking  ?  Did  Rog  board 
with  Williams  and  Onion,  at  Copenhagen  ? 

A.  No.  Rog  came  there  after  we  did.  I  met  him  one  day 
in  the  street  ;  he  seemed  ashamed,  and  held  down  his  head,  and 
did  not  want  to  speak  to  me. 

Knapp.  Between  whom  was  the  conversation  at  the  break¬ 
fast  table  ? 

A.  Stromer,  Williams  and  Onion.  I  did  not  hear  Onion  say 
any  thing,  but  he  was  eating  away.  Williams  mentioned  that  he 
had  killed  a  man  in  Spain,  belonging  to  the  artillery ;  said  he 
escaped  punishment,  and  that  u  if  he  could  weather  that,  he 
could  weather  hell.” 

Knapp.  Did  you  ever  hear  White  say  he  participated  in  the 
murder  of  Baynard  ? 

A.  No,  1  never  did.  White  was  very  sly.  He  used  always 
to  be  singing  and  telling  stories  to  the  crew. 

Onion  called  again. 

Knapp.  Who  came  first  to  the  locker  ? 

A.  Francis  Frederick. 

Knapp.  Did  you  see  White  at  the  time  ? 

A.  I  did  not  see  him  till  about  four  o’clock. 

Knapp.  How  many  were  in  the  cabin  ? 

A.  Eight  or  ten,  1  suppose. 

Knapp.  Have  you  any  doubt  about  White  ? 

A.  I  cannot  swear  one  way  nor  the  other  ;  they  were  all 
standing  up  ;  if  White  was  there,  I  do  not  recollect  him. 

Knapp.  Did  you  hear  any  conversation  at  breakfast  respect¬ 
ing  the  captain’s  saying,  “  Williams,  don't  yrou  know  me  ?” 

A.  I  did  not. 

Mr.  M'Kirn. 

Diet.  Alt.  Describe  the  locker  of  the  Plattsburgh. 

Witness.  The  Plattsburgh  is  a  sharp  Baltimore  schooner,  with 
four  births  only  in  the  cabin — has  a  great  rake  aft — the  lockers' 
are  on  the  sides  of  the  births — she  is  broader  on  the  transum 
than  most  vessels  of  that  class.  When  1  first  heard  of  Onion’s  get- 


25 


ting  into  the  locker,  I  hardly  believed  it,  and  I  went  to  examine 
it  after  the  vessel  returned,  and  1  was  still  inclined  to  doubt  ; 
but  it  seems  he  did  get  into  it. 

Onion  called  again — said  the  lockers  communicate.  That  he 
entered  the  after  locker,  head  foremost,  and  came  out  of  the  for¬ 
ward  locker. 

The  court  was  now  adjourned  until  the  next  day  at  nine 
o’clock. 

TUESDAY,  DEC,  29tll. 

Mr.  M'Kiin  was  again  called  upon  the  stand. 

District  Attorney.  State  what  part  of  the  cargo  has  been  re* 
covered. 

Witness.  I  lost  nothing  mjself,  as  I  was  fully  insured.  The 
underwriters  appointed  me  their  agent  to  collect  such  part  of  the 
cargo  as  it  might  be  possible  to  recover.  I  went  to  Washington 
and  called  upon  Mr.  Monroe,  then  Secretary  of  State.  He  told 
me  that  Government  was  disposed  to  do  all  in  its  power  to  get  as 
well  the  money,  as  the  men  ;  and  he  proposed  sending  circular 
letters  abroad.  Stromer  put  the  coffee  into  the  hands  of  Mr. 
Isaacson,  the  consul  at  Christiansand.  I  wrote  to  Isaacson,  and 
enclosed  a  circular.  Isaacson  sold  the  coffee,  and  has  remitted 
by  my  order,  to  the  Messrs.  Barings,  £800  sterling,  and  has  in 
his  hands  £1200  sterling  more.  I  received  a  letter  from  Sabic, 
the  consul  at  Copenhagen,  giving  intelligence  that  some  of  the 
crew  were  arrested  and  $5000  found  upon  them,  which  sum  has 
been  received.  These  sums  are  all  that  has  been  recovered  of 
the  cargo. 

Mr.  De  la  Roche ,  called  again,  stated  that  the  pannel  of  the 
locker  was  fifteen  inches  high,  and  from  fifteen  to  eighteen  wide  ; 
that  he  could  get  into  the  locker  himself;  that  he  had  put  his 
head  and  shoulders  through  the  opening,  and  that  after  passing 
the  aperture,  there  is  room  enough. 

< S'.  B.  Onion ,  called  again,  being  questioned,  testified  that  after 
he  left  Norway,  he  passed  by  the  name  of  Yeiser — that  when  the 
papers  were  altered,  Stromer’s  name  was  put  in  the  place  of 
Hackett’s,  Williams’s  in  that  of  Yeiser,  and  his  own  remained 
unaltered — that  Frederick,  Williams,  Went  and  Stromer  were  in 
his  watch. 

The  evidence  on  the  part  of  the  government  being  closed,  and 
the  prisoners  having  none  to  offer,  Mr.  Hooper  addressed  the  jury 
in  substance,  as  follows  : — 

May  it  please  your  Honors , 

Gentlemen  of  the  Jury , 

It  is  incumbent  on  me  gentlemen,  by  the  assignment  of  the 
honorable  court,  to  address  you  in  defence  of  the  prisoners. 
For  their  sakes,  I  regret,  that  any  part  of  this  arduous  and  un¬ 
pleasant  task,  has  devolved  upon  me  ;  for  however  abject  and  for¬ 
lorn  may  be  their  condition  ;  however  destitute  of  friends,  or 
sympathy — foreigners  most  of  them,  and  all  of  them  strangers— 


2(3 


far  from  those  who  might  testify  in  their  favor,  or  aid  them  in 
their  peril  ;  they  are  but  the  more  entitled  to  all  the  assistance 
which  ability  and  experience  can  yield,  on  the  part  cf  those  se¬ 
lected  to  defend  them.  The  scene  which  is  presented  to  you, 
gentlemen,  is  of  rare,  and  perhaps  unparalleled  occurrence  in  this 
land.  Five  men — young  men — in  the  vigor  of  their  days — stand¬ 
ing  together,  charged  with  the  commission  of  a  crime,  w  hich,  if 
proved,  must  consign  them  all  to  an  immediate  grave ;  is  a  spec¬ 
tacle,  whose  solemnity  the  most  thoughtless  cannot  disregard, 
and  which  imposes  the  most  tremendous  responsibility  on  those 
to  whose  judgment  it  is  submitted.  The  prisoners’  counsel,  gen¬ 
tlemen,  on  this  important  occasion,  have  been  unavoidably  limit¬ 
ed  to  a  very  few  days,  in  which,  amid  other  avocalions,  to  pre¬ 
pare  the  defence  ;  and  they  have  been  necessarily  unacquainted, un¬ 
til  the  close  of  the  testimony  the  last  evening, with  the  precise  shape 
which  it  might  assume  before  you.  The  prisoners,  gentlemen, 
have  no  witnesses.  They  cannot,  like  the  government,  select 
one  or  two  from  their  number,  and  place  them  upon  that  stand, 
to  testify  in  their  favor  ;  and  Vet,  why  should  not  men,  thus  call- 
fed  upon  to  defend  their  lives,  be  entitled  to  the  privilege  of  tes¬ 
timony  from  the  same  source  as  the  accuser  ?  There  are  other 
circumstances  of  peculiar  disadvantage,  aside  from  any  question 
of  guilt,  writh  which  the  prisoners  are  obliged  to  contend.  It  is  a 
long  time,  since  the  report  of  an  appalling  deed  of  piracy  and 
blood  on  board  this  vessel,  reached  us.  It  produced  the  excite¬ 
ment,  which  is  so  natural,  particularly  in  a  part  of  the  country 
devoted  to  commercial  pursuits  ;  and  of  course  deeply  interested, 
in  every  thing  which  is  Connected  with  the  lives  and  fortunes  of 
commercial  men.  This  excitement  was  continued,  by  hearing  at 
one  time,  that  the  criminals  had  been  detected  ;  at  another,  that  a 
national  ship  had  been  sent  to  bring  them  here.  We  heard  of  their 
embarkation — their  departure- — arrival.  We  sawr  these  unfortu¬ 
nate  men  ;it  the  bar,  marched  through  our  streets,  surrounded  by 
bayonets,  and  in  fetters,  and  we  came  at  last  to  mistake  our  hor¬ 
ror  at  the  crime,  for  evidence  of  the  guilt  of  the  suspected  per¬ 
sons.  W?  hardly  remembered,  that  accusation  is  not  proof ;  we 
seemed  to  have  made  up  our  minds  on  the  subject,  and  to  wait  for 
nothing,  but  judgment  and  execution.  Gentlemen,  ifr'eannot  be 
necessary  to  say  to  you,  in  so  far  as  you  may  hav  e  shared  in  these 
prejudices  and  feelings;  with  what  scrupulous  anxiety,  you  are 
bound  to  banish  them  from  your  minds.  The  prisoners  have  sol¬ 
emnly  declared  their  innocence,  and  appealed  to  their  “  God  and 
their  country”  to  confirm  it.  You  are  that  country,  gentlemen. 
As  its  selected  representatives,  performing  the  most  solemn  dnty, 
to  which  you  will  probably  he  called,  until  you  and  they  shall 
stand  together  at  the  same  awful  bar;  they  have  a  right  to  de¬ 
mand,  that  you  bring  to  the  deci-ion  of  their  cause,  minds  free  from 
every  bias  and  prejudice.  They  have  a  right  to  demand,  that 
they  shall  lie  presumed  to  be  innocent,  until  their  guilt  is  made 


27 


manifest.  They  have  a  right  to  ask,  what  in  the  distinguished 
wisdom  and  humanity  of  this  high  and  enlightened  court,  I  have 
no  doubt  they  will  receive ;  justice,  administered  with  the  most 
scrupulous  caution,  and  regard  for  life. 

Gentlemen — the  prisoners  are  each  and  all  of  them,  indicted 
for  killing,  piratically,  feloniously,  wilfully,  and  of  malice  afore¬ 
thought,  one  Thomas  Baynard.  This,  notwithstanding  the  wide 
range  which  the  evidence  has  taken,  is  the  precise  and  only 
charge  which  you  are  to  try.  And  again,  I  implore  you,  if  any 
impressions  of  other  charges  and  crimes  against  them,  be  enter¬ 
tained  by  you,  to  watch  with  the  most  jealous  care,  that  they  do 
not  mingle  or  interfere,  with  the  discharge  of  your  present  duties. 

It  is  unnecessary  now,  to  my  purpose,  gentlemen,  to  dvveil  on 
the  legal  definition  of  malice;  or  the  different  species  and  degrees 
of  it,  necessary  to  constitute  the  crime  of  murder. 

The  English  law  of  piracy,  making  principals  and  accessaries 
liable  in  the  same  form,  and  to  the  same  penalties ;  or  in  other 
words,  making  accessaries,  principals  ;*  is,  if  ever  in  force  here, 
superseded  by  our  own  statute  on  that  subject  ;f  and  it  is  therefore, 
in  sustaining  the  charge,  incumbent  on  the  government  to  satisfy 
you,  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt,  not  only  of  the  death  of  Bay¬ 
nard,  and  that  he  came  to  his  death  by  the  violence  stated  in  the 
indictment;  but  also  that  the  prisoners,  each  and  all  of  them, 
committed  this  violence,  wilfully  and  of  malice  aforethought; 
or  were  present  with  the  unlawful  intention  of  aiding  and  abetting, 
or  did  actually  aid  and  abet,  in  the  commission  of  it.  It  is  said  in 
the  books,  “they  must  be  aiding,  assisting,  and  abetting;  mere 
presence  is  not  enough.  A  participation  also  in  the  felonious  de¬ 
sign,  is  necessary.”  “  If  one  be  present,  and  not  aiding  or  abet¬ 
ting  to  the  felony,  he  is  not  principal  or  accessary.”  “  If  A  and 
B  be  fighting,  and  C  is  a  looker  on,  and  assists  neither,  he  is  not 
guilty  of  murder  or  homicide,  but  it  is  a  misprision,  for  which  he 
shall  he  fined,  unless  he  useth  means  to  apprehend  the  felon. 
These  principles,  gentlemen,  however  familiar  to  lawyers,  it  is 
not  unnecessary  to  repeat,  as  upon  them,  may  depend  in  a  degree 
at  least,  your  verdict  on  this  occasion. 

Such  then  being  the  charge,  and  the  manner  in  which,  as  we 
apprehend,  the  government  are  bound  to  support  it;  we  say  in 
the  first  place ,  that  even  if  the  testimony  on  the  part  of  the  pro¬ 
secution,  was  drawn  from  the  most  fair  and  unpolluted  sources;  if 
the  witnesses  were  superior  to  all  exception,  and  admitting  that 
they  swear  what  they  believe  to  be  true  ;  they  have  not  established 
the  fact  of  the  killing ,  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt;  and  in  a  case, 
consisting  as  we  shall  presently  attempt  to  show  you,  principally 
of  presumptive  evidence,  in  fact,  if  not  in  form ;  we  contend  that 

*  11  &12,  Wm.  3d.  8  Geo.  1st. 

t  1790. 

1  Chitty  1.  258,  Mac  Nally,  363.  Gilbert  Ev.  827.  Hale  1.  438,  439, 

442,  444.  Royce’s  case. 


28 


the  government  are  bound  to  put  the  death  of  Baynard,  beyond 
all  doubt  or  question.  They  shall  not  be  permitted  to  make  pre¬ 
sumptions,  except  on  a  fact  already  known  and  ascertained.  They 
shall  not  raise  one  presumption  upon  another,  through  their  whole 
chain  of  reasoning,  when  the  existence  of  the  fact  on  which  they 
ground  them  all,  is  itself  but  a  probability  and  a  presumption. 
This  is  not  a  captious  or  fanciful  objection.  It  is  not  stated,  for 
the  purpose  of  asking  you  to  yield  to  it  any  force,  to  which  it  is 
not  most  justly  entitled.  It  is  founded  in  reason,  and  sanctioned 
by  law  ;  by  law,  as  expounded  by  some  of  the  most  able  and  en¬ 
lightened  judges,  who  have  ever  sat  upon  the  bench.  “  I  would 
never,  says  lord  Hale,  convict  any  person  of  murder  or  man¬ 
slaughter,  unless  the  fact  were  proved  to  be  done,  or  at  least  the 
body  found  dead."*  “The  wisdom  and  goodness  of  our  law,  ap¬ 
pears  in  nothing  more  remarkably,  says  lord  Cowper  ;  than  in  the 
perspicuity,  certainty,  and  clearness,  of  the  evidence  it  requires, 
to  fix  a  crime  upon  any  man ;  evidence  so  clear  and  convincing, 
that  every  man  the  instant  he  hears  it,  must  be  fully  satisfied  of 
the  truth  and  certainty  of  it.’T  If  this  convincing  clearness  and 
certainty  is  required,  to  fix  any  crime  upon  a  single  person,  how 
much  more  should  you  insist  upon  it,  when  called  to  convict,  on 
a  charge  of  such  deep  and  dreadful  atrocity,  five  men?  Now  the 
only  direct  evidence  of  the  death  of  Baynard  is,  that  Samberson 
says  he  saw  two  men,  whom  he  considered  to  be  Williams  and 
Rog,  take  up  Baynard.  and  throw  him  alive  into  the  sea.  The 
case  of  Rex  or  Hindmarsh,  is  an  authority,  which  is  not  to  be 
resisted  on  this  occasion.  I  ask  your  particular  attention  to  it 
gentlemen,  because  the  indictment  is  drawn  in  the  very  words, 
which  the  council  for  the  government,  have  seen  fit  to  use  in  the 
present  case  ;  and  because  the  charges  and  the  evidence  were 
almost  precisely  similar,  to  those  which  are  nowr  presented  to  you. 
It  was  tried  so  recently  as  1792.  The  first  count  in  the  indict¬ 
ment  stated,  that  the  defendant,  by  striking  and  beating  on  board 
the  sloop  Eolus,  on  the  high  seas,  one  Samuel  Bum  Cowie ,  did  kill 
and  murder  him.  The  second  count  stated,  that  the  defendant, 
by  casting  and  throwing  the  said  Cowie ,  out  of  the  said  sloop,  into 
the  high  seas,  did  kill  and  murder  him.  “  It  appeared  in  evidence, 
that  Cowie  was  commander  of  the  Eolus ,  a  small  vessel,  on  board 
which  Hindmarsh ,  the  prisoner,  and  Spears ,  Creed ,  and  Atkins,  the 
witnesses,  were  mariners ;  that  the  prisoner  proposed  to  Atkins 
to  kill  the  captain  ;  that  the  witness  Spears ,  was  alarmed  in  his 
sleep,  during  the  dead  of  the  night,  by  a  violent  noise  ;  and  on 
getting  out  of  his  hammock,  and  going  upon  the  deck,  he  observ¬ 
ed  the  prisoner  take  the  captain  up,  and  throw  him  overboard 
into  the  sea  ;  and  that  he  was  not  seen,  or  heard  of  afterw  ards  : 
but  that  near  the  place  on  the  deck,  where  the  captain  was  seen, 


*  Phillips  17.  37.  Hale,  2,  290.  Chitty,  563. 
t  lips,  of  RuchesUa’a  trial. 


29 


Creed ,  the  other  witness,  found  a  billet  of  wood,  and  that  the.  deck 
and  part  of  the  prisoner’s  dress,  were  stained  with  blood.  Garrow 
contended,  that  on  this  evidence,  the  prisoner  was  entitled  to  be 
acquitted  ;  for  it  was  not  proved,  that  the  captain  was  dead.  He 
cited  Hale,  P.  C.  290.  and  mentioned  a  remarkable  case,  which 
had  happened  before  Mr.  Justice  Gould.  The  case  was-  this. 
The  mother  and  reputed  father  of  an  illegitimate  child,  were 
observed  to  take  the  child  to  the  margin  ot  the  dock  at  Liverpool , 
and  after  stripping  it,  cast  it  into  the  dock.  The  body  ot  the 
infant  was  not  afterwards  seen ;  and  as  the  tide  ot  the  sea  flowed 
and  reflowed  into  and  out  of  the  dock,  the  learned  Judge,  who 
tried  the  father  and  mother,  for  the  murder  ol  their  chiid,  ob¬ 
served,  that  it  was  possible,  that  the  tide  might  have  carried  out 
the  living  infant :  and  on  this  ground,  the  jury  by  his  direction, 
acquitted  the  prisoners.  The  Court,  which  consisted  ol  Sir 
James  Marriott,  Ashurst,  Hotham,  and  several  Doctors  ot  civil 
law  ;  admitted  the  general  rule  of  law.  Mr.  Justice  Jishurst ,  who 
tried  the  prisoner,  left  it  to  the  jury,  upon  ths  evidence  to  say, 
whether  the  deceased  was  not  killed,  before  his  body  was  cast 
into  the  sea.  The  jury  found  the  prisoner  guilty,  declaring,  that 
they  were  of  opinion,  that  the  deceased  was  killed  by  a  beating , 
before  he  was  cast  into  the  sea.”  So  far  gentlemen,  for  these 
decisions,  and  I  submit  to  you  that  they  completely  support  the 
ground  which  I  have  taken.  There  was  no  biiiet  ol  wood  lound 
here,  and  no  blood  on  the  deck,  or  the  prisoners  dress ;  nor  any 
circumstance,  by  which  you  can  be  authorized  to  conclude,  as 
did  the  jury  in  that  case,  that  the  person  was  killed  on  the  deck. 
On  the  contrary,  the  evidence  expressly  negatives  any  such  sup¬ 
position.  If  then  it  is  said,  that  Baynard  was  dead,  when  cast 
into  the  sea  ;  the  answer  is,  that  there  is  no  proof  ot  that  fact,  but 
that  on  the  contrary,  his  voice  was  heard  ;  and  that  it  it  were  so, 
the  throwing  him  over  could  not  be  murder.  If  it  is  admitted, 
as  the  evidence  is,  that  he  was  living,  when  cast  from  the  vessel, 
there  is  then  on  the  authority  of  this  case,  no  sufficient  proof  that 
he  was  killed,  as  stated  in  the  indictment.  We  leave  to  the  gen¬ 
tleman,  the  choice  of  the  alternative.  There  are  many  instances 
recorded  of  persons,  supposed  to  be  dead,  on  stronger  evidence 
than  this,  afterwards  found  alive,*  and  there  is  in  this  case  no 
positive  proof,  that  there  was  not,  in  fact,  a  sail  passing  as  was 
declared  by  the  men  on  the  forecastle.  You,  gentlemen,  will  at¬ 
tentively  consider  these  decisions.  There  can  be  no  better  guides 
to  a  jury,  in  forming  an  opinion,  in  all  doubtful  cases,  than  prece¬ 
dents  of  such  authority,  and  especially,  in  cases  of  such  perilous 
importance  as  the  present.  It  is  not  surely  in  this  country,  and 
in  these  times;  sitting  as  you  do,  to  administer  justice,  under  the 
mildest  criminal  code  which  exists  in  the  world ;  that  you  are  to 
be  urged  to  sacrifice  the  lives  of  five  men,  upon  evidence,  which 


*  Hale  2d,  P.  C.  290,  Phillipps’  Supp. 


30 


even  in  England,  where  the  laws  for  the  punishment  of  crime* 
are  so  sanguinary  and  vindictive,  has  been  solemnty  and  repeat¬ 
edly  decided,  to  be  altogether  insufficient  to  establish  guilt.  Not 
to  dwell  longer,  however,  on  this  subject;  the  fact  even  of  Bar¬ 
nard's  being  thrown  over  at  all ,  is  by  no  means  certain,  even  if 
you  suppose  Samberson  testifies  what  he  believes;  for  from  his 
situation,  it  is  almost  impossible  that  he  could  testify  with  cer¬ 
tainty.  He  was  called  up  at  midnight — affrighted — to  a  scene  of 
confusion.  He  was  seized  with  violence,  if  you  believe  him;  it 
was  dark — stormy  ; — add  to  this,  the  extreme  improbability  that 
they  should  drag  him  on  deck,  without  any  conceivable  motive, 
just  in  time  to  witness  the  violence  upon  Baynard ;  and  you  will, 
I  think,  not  confide  in  the  certainty  of  his  testimony,  as  to  the 
throwing  the  body  over,  or  if  done,  as  to  the  persons  who  did  it. 
You  will  judge,  whether  the  evidence  of  such  a  witness— testifying 
to  such  facts — at  such  a  time — must  not  necessarily  be  unsatisfac¬ 
tory.  It  applies  also  solely  to  Williams  and  Hog  ;  no  others  are  in 
any  shape  implicated  by  the  testimony,  in  the  death  of  Baynard. 
White,  in  particular,  it  is  testified  by  Onion,  was  not  seen  nor 
heard  of  by  him,  during  the  night.  I  beg  you  to  bear  this  fact  in 
mind,  gentlemen  ;  you  have  the  same  certainty  of  it,  as  of  any 
other  part  of  Onion’s  testimony,  and  l  shall  hereafter  recur  to  it. 
Here  I  may  remark  to  you,  that  inasmuch  as  the  prisoners  were 
entitled  each  of  them  to  a  separate  trial,  although  they  did  not  see 
fit  to  elect  it;  so  you  are  bound  to  consider  their  cases  as  distinct 
and  separate,  and  apply  the  evidence  with  scrupulous  accuracy  to 
each.  If  you  should  think  any  of  them  guilty,  and  not  be  able 
with  the  most  unerring  certainty,  to  determine  which,  you  are 
bound  to  acquit  them  all.*  Onion  says,  Frederick,  Rog,  Raineaux, 
and  Williams,  were  the  only  men  on  deck.  Stromer,  Smith,  Rog, 
Williams,  and  Daniel  Went,  were  the  only  men  whom  Samberson 
saw  there.  There  was  no  man  then  of  these  prisoners,  according 
to  my  minutes  of  the  evidence,  known  at  that  time  to  be  on  deck, 
who  did  not  belong  to  the  watch  then  just  commencing,  excepting 
Rog;  and  his  presence  may  he  accounted  for  by  the  fact,  that  the 
watch  had  been  just  before  changed ;  and  it  was  not  surprising 
that  he  had  not  gone  below.  They  were  there  then  for  a  lawful 
purpose.  All  but  one  were  obliged  to  be  there.  1  ou  are  not  to 
seek  for  an  unlawful  purpose,  when  a  lawful  one  is  proved  to 
exist ;  and  as  I  have  before  read  to  you,  unless  they  were  present 
with  the  felonious  intent,  or  actually  committed,  or  aided  and 
abetted  in  the  commission  of  the  felony,  they  cannot  be  found 
guilty  under  this  indictment. 

But  conversations  are  stated,  which  it  is  attempted  to  make 
into  something  like  confessions.  If  the  statements  ot  them  are  to 
be  taken  together,  they  carry  their  own  refutation  in  their  ab¬ 
surdity.  But  are  they  proved  to  have  taken  place  at  all,  in  the 


Cbitty,  258,  260.  Hale  I.  P.  C.  442,  443. 


31 


maimer  in  which  they  are  related  ?  Can  it  be  possible,  for  in¬ 
stance,  that  Onion,  during  that  night ;  in  such  a  scene,  as  he 
would  have  you  believe  it  was  ;  in  the  confusion  on  deck,  or  in  the 
confinement  of  the  bread  room  ;  trembling  for  his  life  ;  convuls’d  with 
terror ;  should  be  able  to  identify, with  certaintj', persons  or  voices  ? 
But  confessions  themselves,  by  the  rules  of  the  civil  law,  must  be 
made  at  the  time  of  the  trial,  and  in  the  presence  of  the  judge  ; 
nor  can  they  be  proved  by  the  testimony  of  witnesses.!  By  the 
common  law,  even  when  formally  made,  they  are  received  with 
great  reluctance,  and  persons  have  frequently  retracted  them, 
and  been  thereafter  acquitted  ;  nor  can  the  confession  of  one  be 
used  against  another.^  “  But  hasty  confessions,  made  to  persons 
having  no  authority  to  examine,  are  the  weakest  and  most  suspi¬ 
cious  of  all  evidence.  Proof  may  be  too  easily  procured,  words 
are  often  misreported,  whether  through  ignorance,  inattention,  or 
malice,  it  mattereth  not  to  the  defendant  :  he  is  equally  affected 
in  either  case,  and  they  are  extremely  liable  to  misconstruction  ; 
and  withal,  this  evidence  is  not  in  the  ordinary  course  of  things, 
to  be  disproved  by  that  sort  of  negative  evidence,  by  which  the 
proof  of  plain  facts,  may  be  and  often  is  confronted.”];  They  are 
sometimes  made  in  a  state  of  inebriety,  when  the  court  will  not 
receive  them.*  How  much  less,  then,  mere  conversations  in  such 
a  state,  when  the  voices  perhaps  were  not  accurately  distinguish¬ 
ed — words  not  remembered — manner  of  saying  them  not  regard¬ 
ed.  Why  also  is  the  confession  of  the  prisoners  alone  recollect¬ 
ed  ?  Why,  amidst  all  this  absurd  detail  of  confessions  and  con¬ 
versations,  has  so  little  escaped  the  witnesses,  of  what  was  said 
by  Ptaineaux,  and  Staceys  and  Went,  and  others  ?  Why  cannot 
they  recollect,  what  was  related  by  these  other  men  of  their  ex¬ 
ploits  ?  Why  indeed,  gentlemen,  but  because  it  is  all  mere  in¬ 
vention  on  their  part,  and  recollection  has  nothing  to  do  with  it. 
They  suppose  it  is  sufficient,  to  make  up  a  story,  as  to  the  un¬ 
fortunate  men  at  the  bar.  But  supposing  them,  as  related,  may 
they  not  be  accounted  for,  without  imputing  guilt  to  the  prison¬ 
ers  ?  It  is  not  to  be  presumed,  that  of  a  whole  crew,  consisting 
of  fourteen,  all  were  engaged  in  the  transaction.  There  were 
nine  other  men.  Stromer,  of  whom  we  have  heard  so  much, 
and  acknowledged  by  the  witnesses  to  be  a  leader,  was  one.  On¬ 
ion  was  one.  Smith,  who  had  quarrelled  with  the  captain  andi 
mate,  was  one.  Raineaux  was  one  ;  and  admitting-,  for  a  mo¬ 
ment,  and  for  the  purposes  of  this  argument,  what  we  certainly 
do  not  admit  for  any  other  purpose,  that  transactions,  like  those 
related,  took  place,  these  men,  whom  I  have  just  named,  some  or 
all  of  them,  were  most  guiltyu  Might  not  the  prisoners  have  been 

t  Preamble  to  Stat.  Henry  8th.  Domat  Book  4th,  tit.  4th,  sec.  9th. 

{  Burns,  1,  680. 

]  Foster  C.  R.  243,  200,  240.  McNally  358.  Chitty  570.  Phillips  81 
Kelyng  18. 

*  Vaughn’s  case.  5  St  Tri.  Salk  634. 


32 


compelled,  by  the  threats  of  Stromer  and  his  companions,  not  to 
interfere  with,  them  ;  and  when  the  affair  was  over,  and  they  found 
themselves  completely  in  his  power  ;  might  they  not,  from  fear, 
and  to  remove  suspicion  ;  have  been  willing  to  speak,  as  il  they 
had  an  agency  in  the  transaction,  in  which  in  fact  they  took  no 
part  ?  But  would  not  even  that  agencv  in  it,  for  the  sake  of  sav¬ 
ing  their  lives,  which  would  be  excusable  in  treason ,  have  been  jus¬ 
tified  here  ?  “  If  the  commission  of  treason  may  be  extenuated  by 
the  fear  of  present  death,  and  while  the  party  is  under  actual 
compulsion,  there  seems  no  reason,  why  the  offence  of  homicide, 
may  not  also  be  mitigated,  upou  the  like  consideration  of  human 
infirmity.”!  Lord  Hale  indeed  says,  that  although  physical  force 
will  excuse,  moral  will  not  ;  because  an  immediate  appeal  is  open 
to  the  laws  for  security.  But  to  what  laws  can  there  be  an  ap¬ 
peal  on  the  ocean,  where  a  man  must  either  sacrifice  his  own  life, 
or  take  another’s  ?  The  fear  of  death  has  a  mighty  and  myste¬ 
rious  power  over  the  mind  of  man.  It  has  sometimes  compelled 
him  falsely  to  accuse  others,  and  sometimes  to  declare  himself 
guilty  of  crimes,  which  he  never  committed.  The  fear  of  death 
places  those  witnesses  on  that  staud  this  day.  Might  it  not  have 
induced  the  prisoners  to  express  themselves  as  they  are  repre¬ 
sented  to  have  done  ;  or  even  if  their  participation  was  more  ac¬ 
tive,  would  not  this  consideration  take  away  all  imputation  of  ma¬ 
lice  from  iheir  deeds  ?  Taking  then  the  government’s  witnesses  to 
be  such  as  have  a  right  to  stand  in  a  court  of  justice,  and  be  listen¬ 
ed  to  with  patience  ;  whether  you  consider  the  fact  of  Baynard’s  i 
death  ;  the  little  reliance  to  be  placed  on  Samberson  and  Onion, 
testifying  to  such  facts,  under  such  circumstances — that  as  to 
Frederick  and  Peterson,  the  evidence  but  slightly  applies,  such  as 
it  is,  and  to  White ,  not  at  all — the  entire  insufficiency  of  the  evi¬ 
dence  of  such  conversations — remarks  made,  if  at  all,  probably 
in  a  state  of  intoxication — -or  the  (at  least  possible  case,)  that  the 
remarks  were  made,  or  even  the  acts  done,  in  a  moment  of  ter¬ 
ror,  and  impending  violence;  we  say,  that  the  government  have 
only  given  you  a  case,  and  that  not  a  strong  one,  of  presumptive 
evidence  ;  and  on  the  danger  of  taking  away  men’s  lives  on  such 
evidence,  1  w  ill  read  toyotf  some  authorities.  Hale  P.  C.  2 d,  289  ; 
McNally  '  ;  Phillips  17,  22,43,  51,  58,  76,  86  ;  Ckitty  563.  Here 
are  cases  of  stronger  presumptive  proof,  than  are  furnished  in 
this  instance  and  innocent  men  (proved  innocent  too  late  !)  have 
been  condemned  and  executed  upon  them.  ‘‘Circumstances,  it 
is  said,  cannot  lie  but  “  the  men  who  relate  them  can.”  The 
best  at  any  rate,  may  be  mistaken;  and  when  the  evidence  forms 
a  case  merely  circumstantial,  it  is  therefore  to  be  received  with 
the  utmost  caution  ;  because  in  circumstantial  evidence,  even  if 
true,  we  are  from  its  very  nature  particularly  liable  to  draw  from 
it,  erroneous  inferences,  and  when  to  this  uncertainty  is  added, 

t  East’s  P.  V.  1,70,294.  Mrs.  Rudd’s  case.  Cowper,  336. 


33 


the  danger  of  falsehood  or  mistake  on  the  part  of  the  witnesses,  it 
is  indeed  hazardous  to  rely  upon  it.  Nor  is  it  enough  for  the 
gentleman  to  say,  that  the  evidence  is  the  best,  which  the  nature  of 
the  case  admits.  It  is  not  merely  the  best,  hut  sufficient  evidence, 
which  the  jury  will  require.  No  principle  either  of  equity  or 
law,  obliges  a  jury  to  give  credit  to  weak  evidence,  because  the 
accuser  cannot  furnish  any  which  is  strong  ;  and  to  consign  men 
to  death,  on  insufficient  proof,  merely  because,  no  better  is  to  be 
had.  Now  it  is  not  necessary  for  us  to  show  you,  that  the  pris¬ 
oners  could  not  have  committed  this  offence.  It  is  enough  if  we 
satisfy  you,  that  it  is  not  proved  that  they  did.  Doubt  in  any  one 
point,  must  be  acquittal ;  and  you  must  doubt  on  this  evidence,  the 
killing  ;  you  must  doubt,  (from  the  impossibility  of  their  testifying 
:n  that  situation  with  certainty,)  the  statement,  as  to  who  were 
ictive  in  the  affair;  you  must  reject  the:  evidence  of  theconver- 
•ations,  and  you  must  seriously  doubt,  if  the  prisoners  acted  at  all, 
:hat  they  acted  voluntarily.  So  fax,,  had  you  learned,  the  story 
xom  credible  witnesses,  it  would  have  been,  even  then,  altogeth¬ 
er  insufficient  to  support  the  indictment.  But  we  deny  the  least 
credit  to  the  mate,,  or  Sainberson.  We  say  they  are  scarcely 
competent,  much  less  credible  in  a  court  of  justice.  We  say, that 
n  their  character  of  accomplices,  pt  least,  if  not  principals,  (if  any 
crime  was  committed,)  their  uncorroborated  testimony  is  not  to 
ie  believed.  They  were  partakers  by  their  own  qcknowledg- 
nent,  in  many  of  the  acts,  which  are  considered  by  the  govern- 
nent,  as  criminal  in  the  prisoners.  But  more  than  this  ;  belonging 
is  they  did  to  the  crew  of  that  vessel,  all  of  them  equally  liable 
.0  suspicion;  by  what  evidence,  except  by  their  own  is  it  shewn, 
hat  they  were  not  as  active  as  any  in  the  transaction?  We  say, 
Tat  if  it  ever  took  place,  they  were  guilty  :,  more  guilty  for  not 
iow  confessing  the  whole  ;  and  that  the  mate,  from  hi?  station  on 
Doard,  was  a  leader  in  it.  It  may  be  worth  while,  for  a  momenl;, 
o  inquire  into  the  origin  of  this  practice,  of  admitting  accompli¬ 
ces  to  testify  at  all ;  of  so  far  deviating  from  the  rule  of  law, 
vhich  forbids  persons,  in  the  least  interested,  to  give  evidence, 
is  to  admit  those,  who  must  necessarily  speak  under  the  strongest, 
t  arose  from  the  ancient  practice  of  approvement.  “A  person 
lesiring  to  be  an  approver ,  must  be  one,  indicted  of  the  offence,, 
ind  in  custody  on  that  indictment,  lie  must  upon  oath  discover, 
tot  only  the  particular  offence  for  which  he  is  indicted,  but  all 
elonies,  which  he  knows  of.  If  it  appears,”  after  all,  “  that  he 
s  a  principal,  the  court  may  then  reject  him  ;  and  the  la\v  is  so 
lice,  that  if  lie  vary  in  a  single  circumstance ,  if  he  fail  in  the  colon 
if  a  horse ,  or  in  circumstances  of  time,  he  is  condemned  to  be 
ianged.”  “  It  is  requisite,  that  every. word  said,  should  be  found 
rue,  without  any  falsehoods  ;  for  the  moment  the  court  perceive, 
hat  he  has  falsified  in  any  one  word,  they  will  give  judgment  that 
ie  be  hanged  ;  as  appears  often  has  been  done.” — Copper,  335, 
ns.  v.  3d.  129;  Stamford ,  P,  0  lib.  2.  cap.  56;  Bract.  B  3d, 


34 


cap.  34 ;  Fitz.  Corot i.  p.  441.  And,  gentlemen,  testifying  thu: 
in  vinculis  ;  under  these  restraints  and  terrors  ;  thus  hound  to  th« 
most  scrupulous  accuracy,  by  their  own  impending  punishment,  it  . 
they  deviated  in  the  smallest  particular;  there  might  be  reason* 
for  giving  approvers  some  degree  of  credit,  which  do  not  exist  ir 
the  case  of  accomplices.  They  indeed,  feel  bound  to  make  oul 
a  case  for  the  prosecutor  :  but  they  dread  no  punishment,  although  ■ 
they  perjure  themselves,  with  regard  to  the  accused.  I  have  ' 
thus  endeavored,  briefly  to  explain  to  you,  this  doctrine  bf  ap-  i 
provement ;  not  surely  for  the  purpose  of  contending,  that  it  is 
now  the  law  in  England  ;  much  less  here  ;  or  that  it  ever  ought  to 
to  be  so;  not  certainly,  with  the  design  of  recommending,  that 
in  any  form,  or  in  any  shape,  however  guarded,  a particeps  critninis, 
or  partaker  in  the  crime,  Should  ever  be  considered,  competent 
alone,  to  condemn  those,  whom  he  attempts  to  betray ;  but  with 
the  sole  object,  of  showing  you  with  what  jealous  restrictions,  and 
under  the  salutary  terror  of  what  tremendous  penalties,  an  accom¬ 
plice  was  alone  at  first  permitted  to  testify ;  and  of  leading  you 
thence  to  infer,  if  even  this  practice  was,  as  is  acknowledged,  full 
of  danger  and  evil  to  the  community  ;  that  the  evidence  of  parta¬ 
kers  in  the  crime,  unguarded  by  these  restraints  should  be  received 
with  no  Credit,  except  what  maybe  extorted  from  you,  by  the  cor-  ! 
roboration  in  essential  points,  of  other  witnesses.  If  even  this  prac¬ 
tice  was,  as  Lord  Mansfield  said,  found  productive  of  great  evils; 
the  much  more  dangerous  practice,  of  admitting  accomplices,  is 
'urely  to  be  viewed  with  increased  jealousy.  It  is  not  without  rea¬ 
son,  then,  that  one  general  principle,  strongly  expressed,  is  found' 
in  almost  all  the  authorities;  that  the  uncorroborated  testimony 
ef  nil  accomplice,  is  not  to  be  believed. — Cowper,  366 ;  Chitty,  605  ; 
Phillips ,  28“  Gilbert.  Er. 2-93  ;Z7 ale,  P.C.lst,  305  ;  Crown,  Cir.  Com. 
138.'  Formerly  indeed,  his  niicbrroborated  testimony  could  not  be 
at  all  received.  The  common  law  rejected  such  testimony  ;  and 
pronounced,  that  no  man,  {except  approvers ,)  should  be  heard 
against  the  safety  and  legal  estimation  of  another,  who  by 
the  very  terms  of  his  evidence,  infamized  his  own.  The  English 
statute  law,  admitted  accomplices  in  certain  instances,  yet  so  ad¬ 
mitted  them,  that  in  matters  of  felony,  the  evidence  of  an  ac¬ 
complice  alone,  should  not  go  to  the  jvtry,  but  the  judge  would  di¬ 
rect  them.  that  there  was  no  evidence,  on  which  the  prisoner 
could  legally  he  convicted.  Hawkins,  P.  C.  2d.  604.  Gilb.  Ev. 
295,  &c.  But  without  detaining  you,  to  hear  all  the  passages  in 
(he  books  on  this  subject,  there  is  one.  whose  authority  the  learn- 
ed  gentleman  will  not,  1  am  sure,  call  in  question.  I  read  it,  be¬ 
cause  it  expresses  with  much  more  elegance  and  force  than  I  can 
aspire  to,  the  objections  to  this  species  of  evidence,  which  I  wish 
to  urge  upon  you  ;  and  I  read  it  the  more  readily,  because  the 
ardent  and  successful  exertions  of  the  gentleman  on  that  occasion  ; 
hv  which  one  human  being  was  sav  ed  from  an  ignominious  grave  ; 
are.  1  doubt  not,  among  the  most  proud  and  precious  recollectionv 


35 


of  his  life.  It  is  taken  from  the  speech  of  George  Blake ,  Esq. 
counsel  for  the  prisoners,  in  the  case  of  the  Commonwealth  vs. 
Hardy  : — “  But,  gentlemen,  I  cannot  suffer  this  woman  any  lon¬ 
ger  to  repose  on  the  presumption  of  innocence.  I  will,  there¬ 
fore,  proceed  to  the  third,  and  what  I  deem  to  be  the  most  im¬ 
pregnable  ground  of  objection  against  her  testimony  ;  which  is,  that 
if  not  a  principal  and  alone,  she  was  at  least  accessary  to  the 
murder.”  After  observing,  that  according  to  the  ancient  law,  as 
he  understood  it,  witnesses  in  this  situation  were  not  admitted  un¬ 
til  confession,  and  actual  promise  of  pardon  ;  he  states  one  rea¬ 
son  thereof  to  be,  that  the  witness  “  is  strongly  interested  in  the  con¬ 
viction  of  his  associate  ;  for  though  the  conviction  of  his  compan¬ 
ion  in  guilt,  be  no  expiation  of  his  own  offence,  yet  a  witness  is 
:hus  exterminated ,  and  thereby  the  chance  of  his  own  detection  is 
liminished.  Another  reason  is,  that  a  confederate,  who  swears 
igainst  his  associate,  and  still  protests  his  own  innocence,  has  fail¬ 
ed  to  communicate  the  whole  truth ,  which  he  is  pledged  to  do,  by 
he  tenor  of  his  oath.  Being  thus  guilty  of  a  wilful  perjury  as  to 
me  point,  the  entire  mass  of  his  testimony  is  contaminated,  and  a 
ury  are  bound  to  reject  it,  as  unfit  for  use  in  the  cause.  Anoth¬ 
er  reason  is,  that  a  man  is  incompetent  to  testify  with  fairness  and 
mrity  concerning  the  guilt  of  another,  whilst  his  own  bosom  is 
^boring  with  a  consciousness,  that  he  himself  was  also  g'uilty  of 
he  crime.  He  cannot,  therefore,  be  viewed  as  an  honest,  up- 
ight,  independent  witness,  until,  to  speak  in  figurative  language, 
lis  league  with  the  devil  be  dissolved  by  penitence  and  confession.’1'’ 
>o  far  Mr.  Blake,  gentlemen,  and  the  figure  with  which  he  con- 
ludes,  expresses  with  great  force,  our  opinion  of  the  situation  of 
he  government’s  witnesses,  on  this  occasion.  If  then,  it  be  urg- 
d,  that  the  witnesses  have  not  confessed  themselves  guilty,  we 
ay,  there  can  be  no  stronger  objection  to  them,  than  their  actions 
how ,  what  their  words  deny.  But  they  have  confessed  enough  to 
move  themselves  infamous;  and  if  any  transaction  of  that  kind, 
aok  place  on  board  that  vessel,  they  have  witJiheld  enough,  to 
rove  themselves  perjured.  Those  who  have  the  hardihood  to 
ommit  murder,  or  even  to  conceal  it ,  have  no  compunctions  in 
ilsely  throwing  the  crime  on  others.  They  wish  to  destroy  for- 
aer  associates,  for  if  they  escape  conviction  they  fear  their  ven- 
eance.  This,  they  pretend,  prevented  their  disclosure  at  first  : 
irely  it  must  now  lead  them  to  say  enough  to  secure  themselves, 
y  putting  the  prisoners  to  death.  A  witness,  convicted  of  cer- 
lin  crimes,  is  not  allowed  to  testify.  Brae.  6,  4  ca  19  ;  Gilb.  25 b. 
i  in  what  principle  is  this?  Because,  it  is  the  probity  of  a  witness 
hich  we  regard — his  sense  of  shame — his  moral  sense — his  re- 
ard  for  his  fellow  men — for  society — his  belief  of  responsibility 
»r  his  acts  in  a  future  life.  Hence,  no  infidel  can  testify.  Om- 
hund  vs.  Barker ,  Jltkyns  1.  Hence  no  man,  alleging  or  discov- 
ring  his  own  turpitude,  according  to  Lord  Coke ,  Inst.  4,  279. 
one,  convicted  of  the  crime  of  falsifying,  or  petty  larceny,  or 


barratry  Hence  too,  men  and  women  of  abandoned  character, 
are  not  to  be  credited — Mass.  Rep. — What  is  the  difference,  then  i 
gentlemen,  as  to  the  credit  of  his  testimony,  between  a  man  con¬ 
victed  of  a  crime,  and  one  who,  by  his  own  confession,  ought  to  < 
be  convicted  ?  It  is  not  the  conviction,  it  is  the  crime  which  inca¬ 
pacitates.  They  indeed,  tell  you,  that  they  acted  under  con-  i 
straint ;  but  if  the  prisoners  could  go  upon  the  stand,  they  might 
tell  a  very  different  story.  If  any  thing  of  this  kind,  was  done,  • 
are  not  the  prisoners  equally  worthy  of  credit,  and  might  they  I 
not  reverse  the  whole  affair?  They  might  tell  of  confessions — 
who  gave  the  blows — who  shared  in  the  plunder — who  acted  as 
first  and  second  in  command,  after  the  affray. 

If  a  person  have  a  promise  of  pardon,  says  Lord  Hale,  this  disa¬ 
bles  his  testimony,  Hale's  P.  C.  2d.  280.  Why  is  it  so,  gentle¬ 
men  ?  Because,  that  promise  may  operate  on  his  mind,  as  an  in¬ 
ducement  to  swear  falsely.  Now  what  is  the  difference,  as  to  the 
operation  on  the  mind,  between  the  certainty  of  a  pardon,  which 
these  men  have,  (if  they  make  out  their  accusation,')  and  the  prom¬ 
ise  of  it.  Let  me  again  suggest  to  you,  the  many  instances  of 
false  testimony  and  false  accusations  to  take  life,  recorded  of  ac¬ 
complices.  Hume,  Oaic's  testimony  &c. ;  Hutchinson  ;  Rudd's  case ; 
Cowper ;  336,  See.  &c.  Recollect  too  how  easily  in  their  repre¬ 
sentations  of  the  pretended  conversations,  “  the  suppression  of  a 
word,  of  a  syllable,  of  an  emphasis,  may  change  the  sense.  So 
words  spoken  in  exclamation,  conveying  by  sound  and  gesture, 
surprise  and  abhorrence,  may  be  represented  in  evidence,”  as  the 
confession  of  guilt. — From  the  nature  of  human  passions  and  ac¬ 
tions  ;  from  the  experience  of  all  past  time  ;  the  authority  of  an 
uninterrupted  series  of  legal  decisions ;  and  the  councils  of  wise 
men ;  the  uncorroborated  testimony  of  accomplices,  must  be 
deemed  altogether  unworthy  of  credit.  But  perhaps  it  may  be 
said,  that  their  testimony  is  not  uncorroborated.  By  the  neces¬ 
sary  corroboration  of  the  testimony  of  accomplices,  1  understand 
proofs  of  circumstances,  necessarily  connected  with,  and  making 
part  of,  the  transaction  charged  as  criminal.  I  do  not  understand 
it  to  be  sufficient,  to  bring  evidence  as  to  facts  of  public  notoriety, 
which  all  must  agree  in,  because  every  body  knew.  It  must  es¬ 
tablish  some  essential  and  substantive  part  of  the  specific  crime 
charged ;  some  fact,  which  could  not  exist,  consistently  with  the 
prisoners’  innocence.  That  there  is  such  a  place,  as  Baltimore; 
that  it  is  a  commercial  one  ;  that  there  was  such  a  vessel  as  the 
Plattsburgh;  that  she  ?ailed  on  a  voyage  in  1816, — these  are  Dot 
facts,  which  are  to  satisfy  you,  that  the  five  men  at  the  bar,  mur¬ 
dered  wilfully  and  maliciously,  one  Thomas  Baynard.  This  is 
not  the  corroboration,  which  the  weakness  of  the  witnesses  testi¬ 
mony  reopiires.  They  are  not  to  be  believed,  gentlemen,  swear¬ 
ing  to  their  own  infamy — in  their  own  cause — for  their  own  lives — 
concerning  transactions,  which  took  place,  if  at  all,  on  the  ocean ; 
when  no  other  human  being  is  present  to  confront  them, who  was 


37 


on  board  that  vessel,  except  the  prisoners,  whose  mouths  are 
shut ;  and  who,  if  it  were  not  so,  mig-ht  most  completely  contra¬ 
dict  their  story.  But  are  there  not  other  objections  to  them,  be¬ 
sides  the  conclusive  one  of  the  character  of  accomplices,  in  which 
they  appear.  Consider  their  story,  and  their  conduct.  In  some 
particulars  they  contradict  each  other ;  and  in  others,  state  what 
is  exceedingly  improbable,  if  not  impossible,  to  have  been  true 
with  respect  to  themselves.  It  is  a  rule  of  law  by  which  you 
are  bound,  that  if  you  believe  a  rvitness  has  sworn  falsely  in  any 
one  point,  you  must  reject  the  whole. — Coke ,  Inst.  4.  279.  If  you 
do  not  know  which  to  believe,  you  must  believe  neither.  Onion 
says,  he  did  not  serve  as  seeond  mate  after  the  transaction. 
Samberson  swears  he  did.  Onion  said,  without  qualification  on 
the  stand,  although  an  attempt  has  been  made  to  explain 
the  contradiction  this  morning,  that  he  took  the  name  of 
Yeiser.  Samberson  says,  Williams  took  it.  Onion  says,  he  took 
the  money  reluctantly.  Samberson,  that  he  took  it  without  re¬ 
luctance.  Do  you  believe  that  part  of  the  black  man’s  story,  in 
which  he  says,  that  he  was  dragged,  and  compelled  to  come  on 
deck,  just  in  time  to  witness  the  casting  of  the  body  of  Baynard 
into  the  sea;  and  fearful,  and  suspicious  of  him,  as  he  says  they 
were,  and  in, his  station,  do  you  believe  they  made  him  the  con¬ 
fidant  of  their  secrets?  Do  you  believe  his  anxiety,  to  diclose  in 
Norway,  when  he  made  no  attempt  in  Copenhagen?  While  he  is 
watched,  he  tries  to  disclose  ;  when  he  is  at  liberty,  he  forgets  it. 
He  is  an  uninstructed  man,  of  the  lowest  class  in  society ;  igno¬ 
rant  probably  in  a  degree  of  the  nature  ot  an  oath  ;  swearing, 
as  he  understands,  for  his  life ;  a  stor}r  which  he  had  ample  time 
to  agree  upon  with  the  mate.  Is  not  the  mate's  evidence  to  be 
rejected,  gentlemen  ?  He  comes  into  the  court,  in  the  first  place, 
to  take  one  oath,  according  to  his  own  confession,  to  violate  anoth¬ 
er  He  comes  to  call  his  God  to  witness,  that  he  has  already,  in 
the  same  solemn  manner,  taken  his  name  in  vain.  He  was  an  of¬ 
ficer  on  board  that  vessel,  gentlemen  ;  bound  by  the  most  im¬ 
perious  obligations,  to  good  faith  towards  his  superior  officers 
and  owners.  What  does  he  do,  according  to  his  own  account  ; 
He  deserts  his  captain  in  the  moment  of  his  peril — he  leagues 
with  his  murderers  ;  shares  in  the  plunder,  even  of  his  captain's 
cloathing — associates  with  them ;  enters  into  speculations  with 
them — preserves  a  profound  silence,  as  to  the  crime  ;  does  not 
write  even  to  his  friends ;  and  confesses  only,  when  he  hopes  to 
save  his  own  life,  by  betraying  his  fellows.  If  innocent  as  he  swears, 
why  not  reveal  it?  Such  is  his  conduct.  Take  his  story.  He  at 
first,  in  this  scene  of  blood,  receives  a  slight  blow  on  his  head, 
which  he  thought  the  flapping  of  a  sail  ;  so  gently  did  these  ruf- 
fins  proceed.  Murder  is  generally  made  of  “sterner  stuff.”  Did 
they  merely  give  him  a  box  on  the  ear,  just  to  excite  his  attention 
to  the  transaction  ?  He  is  next  seized  by  them,  but  no  harm  en¬ 
sues.  A  blow  of  an  axe  is  aimed  at  his  head,  but  by  another  miracle, 


38 


it  does  him  none,  or  but  slight  injury.  On  finding  his  captain  in 
danger,  he  promptly  and  dutifully  runs  away;  waits  patiently  be¬ 
low,  until  all  those  who  might  have  assisted  him,  and  whom  he 
might  have  assisted,  are  no  more,  and  then  joins  in  the  plunder; 
and  yet,  he  had  no  participation  in  the  crime!  Do  you,  or  can  you 
think  all  this  is  true ,  gentlemen  ?  If  his  conduct  was  what  he  swears 
it  was,  he  is  unworthy  of  credit  in  any  thing  else.  If  his  story 
is  untrue  in  any  part  of  it,  you  are  bound  to  reject  the  whole.  It 
is  not  possible,  gentlemen,  that  on  such  testimony, — thus  pollut 
ed — thus  discredited  in  its  very  character — thus  absurd  and  in¬ 
consistent  in  its  statements  ;  you  can  consent  to  take  the  lives  of 
five  human  beings.  But  such,  and  contaminated  as  it  is,  gentle¬ 
men,  it  does  not,  from  beginning  to  end,  implicate  White.  His 
absence  indeed  from  the  scene,  when,  had  he  been  present,  even 
Onion  says  he  must  have  seen  him,  unless  he  was  hid  ;  his  lament¬ 
ing  constantly  the  transaction,  and  disclaiming  any  part  in  it,  (for 
if  you  admit  the  mate’s  testimony  as  to  the  others,  you  must  as  to 
White,)  all  prove  his  innocence.  Even  were  it  true,  as  the  black 
man  pretends  to  state  ;  that  he  was  on  deck  after  the  transaction, 
and  appearing  to  join  them  ;  it  is  accounted  for  by  the  certainty, 
that  if  such  acts  were  done,  his  opposing  himself  to  others,  thus 
possessed  with  power,  would  have  cost  him  his  life.  If  then  you 
discredit  the  testimony,  and  history,  experience,  law,  and  jus¬ 
tice,  show  you  the  danger  of  confiding  in  it,  you  must  acquit  all 
the  prisoners.  If  you  believe  it,  you  must  at  least  exonerate 
White.  The  subject,  gentlemen,  is  not  exhausted ;  but  I  am  un¬ 
willing,  in  this  very  protracted  trial,  longer  to  detain  you  ;  and  the 
gentleman  who  will  succeed  me,  will  more  than  supply  all  my  de¬ 
ficiencies.  Permit  me  briefly  to  recapitulate  a  few  of  the  sugges¬ 
tions  which  I  have  made.  We  say,  that  under  this  iudictment, 
the  prisoners  must  be  proved  to  you,  each  and  all  of  them,  to  have 
committed  the  murder,  or  to  have  been  present,  aiding,  assisting, 
and  abetting  in  its  commission.  That  the  fact  of  the  killing  is  not 
established.  That  if  it  be  admitted  to  be  probable,  men’s  lives  are 
not  to  be  taken  away  on  probabilities.  That  there  is  no  direct 
evidence  which  can  be  relied  on,  even  if  the  witnesses  are  thought 
honest,  that  Williams  and  Rog  had  any  share  in  the  transaction  ; 
and  none  at  all,  as  to  the  others  ;  that  conversations  stated,  are 
not  confessions  ;  and  if  they  were,  would  not,  in  these  circumstan¬ 
ces,  be  evidence;  and  if  they  were  both,  might  be  accounted  for 
by  the  supposition  of  compulsion  and  terror,  which  would  take  a- 
way  the  character  of  malice  and  crime,  even  from  violence,  if  it 
had  been  proved  to  have  been  committed  ;  that  it  is  all  presump¬ 
tive  evidence,  and  too  weak  to  produce  conviction,  even  if  the 
witnesses  were  credible  ;  that  they  are  not  credible,  because  if 
any  crime  was  committed,  they  were  accomplices,  and  are  not 
cx-edible,  from  their  own  conduct,  as  they  relate  it,  and  the  in¬ 
consistencies  of  their  own  story. 


39 


Gentlemen,  to  your  hands  is  the  fate  of  the  prisoners  consign¬ 
ed.  It  is  not  my  intention  to  address  myself  to  your  feelings,  on 
an  occasion,  which  must  itself  excite  them,  more  powerfully  than 
language.  “  Presumptions  should  be  very  warily  pressed,”  for 
said  Lord  Hale,  (in  whose  character,  the  union  of  wisdom  and  hu¬ 
manity,  was  most  eminently  and  benignly  illustrated,)  “  it  is  bet¬ 
ter  that  the  guilty  should  escape,  than  that  the  innocent  should 
suffer.”  If  yielding  to  the  doubts  which  every  where  surround 
this  cause,  and  uninfluenced  by  the  ability  and  eloquence,  with 
which  the  council  for  the  government  will  address  you — you  pro¬ 
nounce  a  verdict  of  acquittal ;  and  the  innocence  of  the  prisoners, 
should  hereafter  be  made  manifest ;  the  recollection  of  it,  will  be 
to  you  forever,  consolation  and  peace.  If  even,  on  the  other 
hand,  this  deed  of  darkness  has  been  perpetrated  ;  and  the  priso¬ 
ners  should  ever  be  proved,  all  or  any  of  them  to  have  criminal¬ 
ly  shared  in  it ;  you  will  not,  even  then  have  cause  for  regret; 
you  will  not  even  then  fear,  that  its  “  Deep  Damnation”  will  go 
unpunished  ;  or  that  He  who  hath  said  Vengeance  is  mine,  will  not 
amply  repay. — Gentlemen,  I  have  only  to  pray  for  the  prisoners, 
“  a  good  deliverance  ;”  and  for  yourselves,  that  Almighty  God 
may  direct,  and  approve  your  verdict. 

Mr.  Hooper  was  succeeded  by  Mr.  Knapp,  who  thus  addressed 
the  jury  in  behalf  of  the  prisoners  : — 

May  it  please  your  Honors , 

Gentlemen  of  the  Jury , 

It  is  always  an  unpleasant  task  to  defend  those  charged  with 
murder,  or  other  high  offences.  The  council  for  the  prisoners 
never  stand  an  equal  ground  with  the  officers  for  government. 
The  current  of  public  sentiment  is  generally  with  the  latter,  while 
the  advocate  for  the  prisoner  struggles  against  power  and  opinion. 
It  is  a  legal,  not  a  moral  truth,  that  a  man  is  supposed  to  be  inno¬ 
cent  until  he  is  proved  to  be  guilty.  Public  opinion  frequently 
forestalls  the  verdict  of  a  jury.  It  is  in  vain  to  say  that  any  man 
is  above  it.  It  may  influence  him  when  he  is  not  awrare  of  it.  If 
the  labors  of  counsel  were  ever  hard,  ours  is  so  this  day.  The 
great  commercial  interests  of  our  country,  are  so  closely  inter¬ 
woven  with  national  prosperity  and  glory,  that  they  must  be  guard¬ 
ed  at  every  point.  Individual  human  life  is  nothing  to  the  secu¬ 
rity  of  maritime  rights,  privileges  and  facilities  ;  and  every  one 
who  disturbs  the  regularity,  prosperity  and  safety  of  navigation, 
is  justly  treated  with  the  utmost  rigor.  The  severity  of  laws  is 
seldom  to  be  complained  of.  They  are  commonly  just,  and  made 
for  wise  purposes.  It  is  the  severity  of  public  opinion  that  the 
prisoners  have  to  fear  ;  but  this  severity  of  feeling  should  Sever 
enter  a  tribunal  of  justice  ;  there  the  whispers  of  reproach  should 
die  ;  and  there  prejudices  and  partialities  should  cease  ;  for  every 
man  should  be  tried  by  the  law,  and  the  evidence  in  his  case.  It 
is  impossible  I  know,  not  to  catch  something  of  the  general  sympa- 


40 


thy  which  surrounds  us  in  favor  or  against  the  prisoners,  but  this 
feeling  is  a  fallacious  guide,  and  will  never  be  followed  by  an  up¬ 
right  and  an  honest  jury  What  must  be  the  feelings  of  council, 
w  hen  they  know  that  every  eye  flashes  indignation  on  the  priso¬ 
ners  at  the  bar,  and  every  breath  is  but  a  suppressed  impreca¬ 
tion  on  their  heads  ?  Should  the  prisoners  be  abandoned  because 
the  public  mind  is  agitated,  and  the  people  ask  for  their  condem¬ 
nation.  The  timid  and  the  time-serving,  may  yield  to  policy  or 
to  fears  in  such  a  case  ;  but  gentlemen  it  is  our  duty  and  yours  to 
go  on  and  search,  and  weigh  every  thing  which  will  make  iu  their 
favor,  even  if  public  resentment  should  shake  this  hall  of  justice 
to  its  base,  and  attempt  to  pull  down  the  edifice  on  our  heads. 
Humanity  dictates;  the  law  allows,  and  this  enlightened,  pure  and 
high  minded  court  will  protect  us,  and  indulge  a  fair  course  of 
discussion,  and  even  demand  of  us  a  thorough  and  patient  investi¬ 
gation  in  this  case.  Freedom  acknowledges,  and  honor  sanctions 
theprinciple,  that  every  human  being,  however  wretched  and 
fallen  and  lost,  should  find  some  one  to  plead  in  his  favor.  The 
world  is  full  of  examples  to  this  effect,  and  the  page  of  inspiration 
bears  record  that  the  father  of  the  faithful,  twice,  thrice,  yea,  six 
times  importuned  his  God  to  spare  the  accursed  cities  of  Sodom  and 
Gomorrah,  and  the  Most  High  was  not  offended.  The  pleadings 
o l' dust  and  ashes  so  far  gained  on  the  clemency  of  Eternal  Justice, 
that  he  diminished  the  number  of  the  righteous,  for  whose  sake  he 
would  spare  the  wicked,  from  fifty  to  ten.  If  it  be  the  duty  of 
holy  men  to  implore  mercy  of  Heaven  for  the  vilest  of  sinners, 
surely  the  appointed  advocate  in  a  court  of  justice  has  no  reason 
to  shrink  from  demanding  righteovis  judgment  from  a  human  tribu¬ 
nal.  However  general  the  burst  of  public  indignation  may  be  a- 
gainst  the  supposed  perpetrators  of  crimes  on  the  high  seas,  I  will 
not  believe  that  the  magnanimous  citizens  of  my  country  could 
w  ish  to  see  them  destitute  of  assistance.  No,  they  would  ratheF 
help  in  their  defence ;  for  indignation  among  the  moral  and  virtu¬ 
ous,  is  but  a  momentary  feeling,  while  the  love  of  impartial  jus¬ 
tice  is  a  permanent  principle. 

Three  out  of  five  of  the  prisoners  are  foreigners,  strangers  to 
our  laws,  our  forms,  and,  what  is  more,  strangers  to  our  humane 
feelings.  They  are,  of  course,  jealous  of  every  thing.  They 
look,  and  there  is  no  friend  near,  no  eye  to  pity,  and  no  arm  able 
of  itself  to  save.  Their  communication  is  cut  off  from  their  fel¬ 
low  men,  and  the  only  kindness  they  have  felt  of  late,  has  been 
from  the  ministars  of  justice,'  and  the  only  friendly  salutation  which 
has  reached  their  ears,  has  come  officially  from  the  Clerk, 1,1  God 
send  jmhi  a  good  deliverance.”  They  have  so  long  been  on  bond¬ 
age,  that  the  earth  under  their  feet  seems  to  them  accursed,  and 
the  Heavens  over  their  heads  are  dark  and  cheerless,  save  only 
the  vista  which,  through  contrition  and  penitence,  religion  opens 
up  to  the  forgiveness  of  their  Maker.  From  the  very  nature  of 
the  charge,  they  have  no  witnesses;  no  one  who  knew  them  in 


41 


better  days  and  in  other  circumstances,  when  probably  their  chief 
crime  was  -profusion  of  generosity,  and  their  highest  offence  was 
a  total  disregard  of  self.  Shrunk  and  blasted  as  they  are  by  pub- 
lie  abhorrence,  they  can  confidently  rely  on  your  sense  of  justice, 
They  have  been  so  instructed  by  those  who  knew  you. 

On  fair  and  enlightened  decisions,  in  courts  of  justice,  depend 
the  safety,  stability  and  dignity  of  government.  If  the  judge  is 
condemned  when  the  guilty  escape,  he  is  doubly  so  when  the  in-* 
nocent  are  convicted.  The  forms  which  wisdom  and  experience 
have  settled  and  fixed,  must  be  strictly  guarded.  A  close  adher¬ 
ence  to  them  is  the  great  security  of  human  life.  If  they  are  ever 
infringed  by  the  plea  of  supposed  necessity  or  public  excitement, 
all  personal  security  is  uncertain.  It  sometimes  happens  that 
criminals  escape  by  a  rigid  adherence  to  these  rules  ;  and  for  a 
moment  it  may  be  a  subject  of  regret  ;  but,  on  sober  reflection, 
the  wise  and  judicious  would  more  certainly  grieve  at  any  infringe¬ 
ment  on  their  sanctity,  than  at  the  escape  of  an  hundred  criminals. 
One  of  these  substantial  rules  is,  that  the  prisoner  should  meet 
his  accuser  face  to  face,  and  that  nothing  of  hearsay  should  be 
considered  as  evidence  against  him.  Another,  that  the  accuser’s 
character  should  lie  open  to  the  investigation  of  the  prisoner, that 
the  jury  might  know  what  weight  to  give  his  testimony.  The 
witness  must  be  under  oath  ;  but  you  are  to 'consider  how  far  this 
may  be  thought  to  bind  him  to  tell  the  truth.  His  character,  his 
story,  his  inducements  to  falsify,  are  all  subjects  for  your  discus-* 
sion  and  decision.  Who  are  allowed  to  take  this  oath  and  stand 
before  you  as  a  witness,  i^for  the  Court  to  decide  ;  but  hove  far 
the  witness  is  to  be  believed,  after  he  is  sworn,  is  for  you  to 
judge.  But  in  this,  neither  the  court  or  jury  are  left  without 
guides.  The  sages  of  the  law  have  from  time  to  time  fixed  wise 
rules,  which  are  now  considered  binding  as  far  as  they  go.  Per¬ 
mit  me  to  comment  for  a  moment  on  a  few  of  these  rules,  which 
are  applicable  to  the  case  of  the  prisoners  at  the  bar.  As  on  the 
purity  of  a  witness  and  the  truth  of  his  testimony,  depend  our 
lives,  property  and  liberty,  it  is  necessary  cautiously  to  scrutinize 
all  oral  evidence,  that  we  may  get  at  the  truth.  It  is  painful  to 
think  how  much  error  there  is  after  the  utmost  caution,  Falli¬ 
bility  is  stamped  on  every  thing  human,  when  men  are  enlighten¬ 
ed  and  governed  by  the  purest  motives,  and  the  best  affections ; 
but  to  what  an  extravagant  height  it  is  carried,  when  they  are 
weak,  ignorant,  passionate,  revengeful  and  false.  From  honest 
ignorance,  much  error  is  to  be  feared,  for  the  ignorant  cannot  dis¬ 
criminate  accurately  ;  they  confuse  by  mingling  facts,  opinions 
and  wishes  together,  and  although  their  statements  seem  full  of 
honest  candor,  yet  in  truth,  they  are  frequently  full  pf  error. 
The  weak  draw  improper  conclusions  from  misunderstanding  the 
subject  ;  and  folly  has  almost  always  a  dash  of  malignity  in  jt  ; 
and  malice  easily  overpowers  an  imbecile  mind.  Enthusiastic  and 
passionate  people  infuse  much  of  their  feelings  and  wishes  into 
6 


42 


what  they  say,  and  the  solemnity  of  an  oath  is  forgotten  in  the 
fervid  current  of  their  emotions.  It  would  indeed  be  painful  to 
look  back  through  the  history  of  those  who  have  suffered  by  the 
false  and  the  revengeful.  1  believe  there  is  as  little  false  swear¬ 
ing  in  our  court*,  as  in  any  in  the  world,  but  let  the  believer  in 
the  purity  of  human  nature,  the  optimist  who  thinks  the  best  of 
every  thing,  be  an  observer  even  of  our  courts,  and  he  will  hear 
so  much  false  testimony  from  ignorance,  pa-sion,  partiality,  inter¬ 
est  and  hatred,  that  would  soon  destroy  his  theories  of  perfecta- 
bilitv,  dash  his  systems  of  purity  inlo  dust,  and  leave  him  in  doubt, 
if  it  did  not  force  him  into  the  belief  of  total  depravity.  Much 
of  this  evil  happens  when  men  come  forth  as  witnesses  without 
any  apparent  cause  for  deviating  from  the  truth.  At  all  times  the 
jury  are  bound  to  sift  evidence  with  the  most  scrupulous  care  ; 
but  all  the  might  of  their  understandings,  and  all  the  honesty  of 
their  souls,  should  be  summoned  up  to  analyze  and  examine  tes¬ 
timony  which  comes  in  a  questionable  shape  and  carries  doubt  on 
the  face  of  it,  particularly  such  as  you  have  heard  this  day  from 
the  mouths  of  accomplices,  such,  by  their  own  confession.  The 
testimony  of  a  confessed  partner  in  guilt  should  ever  be  suspected. 
Selfishness  has  no  moral  purity.  If  the  developements  of  an  ac¬ 
complice  could  flow  from  contrition  and  penitence,  then  they 
might  create  some  confidence,  but  not  full  confidence  then,  for 
he  might  judge  of  the  motives  of  others  by  his  orvn  before  he 
felt  any  compunctions.  But  when  such  developements  come, 
as  they  generally  do,  from  the  low  and  base  wish  and  expectation 
of  screening  one's  self  from  punishment,  they  contain  the  villainy 
of  crime  and  the  moral  degradation  of  perfidy.  The  communi¬ 
cative  wretch  can  never  forgive  the  man  he  has  ruined  by  divulg¬ 
ing  their  mutual  turpitude.  To  the  correct  statement,  he  adds 
the  suggestions  which  his  own  perfidy  deems  necessary  for  his 
personal  security.  The  ancient  law  of  approvement,  in  some  res¬ 
pects,  was  excellent ;  to  hold  the  approver  to  the  nice  and  entire 
proof  of  his  statements, or  make  him  suffer  the  punishment,  which, 
if  he  had  been  believed,  would  have  been  inflicted  on  those  he 
bore  witness  against.  Modern  policy  has  altered  the  rule,  but 
has  not  changed  the  reason  for  doubting  the  testimony  of  an  ac¬ 
complice.  The  moral  infamy  is  as  great  in  a  confessed  accom¬ 
plice  as  if  he  were  convicted.  If  he  were  convicted,  his  testimo¬ 
ny  could  not  be  received,  because  he  would  be  legally  infamous. 
You  and  I  believe  a  man  to  be  no  less  a  rogue  before  he  is  con¬ 
victed,  than  after,  if  he  is  guilty  of  a  crime.  For  reasons  of  poli¬ 
cy  there  is  a  distinction,  but  in  morals  there  is  no  difference,  j 
The  framers  of  this  rule  of  distinction  were  fearful  of  going  too 
far,  and  more  than  hinted  again  and  again  that  the  testimony  of 
an  accomplice  must  be  supported  by  other  corroborating  evidence 
before  a  jury  would  convict  a  prisoner.  The  legal  guardians  de-  x 
cided  on  the  competency  of  an  accomplice  with  great  deliberation,  1 
but  never  admitted  him  as  a  matter  of  course.  The  counsel  for 


43 


government  must  move  the  court  that  he  be  admitted.  His  guilt 
makes  him  unworthy  the  stand,  without  special  leave  of 
court.  The  accomplice  then  comes  before  you  stained  with  guilt, 
admitted  from  state  necessity, to  tell  a  tale  of  villainy  in  which  he 
was  an  actor ;  and  this  to  shield  himself  from  punishment ;  not 
from  ignominy;  for  every  one  looks  on  him  as  a  felon  spared,  not 
from  clemency,  but  necessity.  The  credit  due  such  a  witness  is 
trifling  indeed,  when  on  his  testimony  hangs  the  fate  of  others,  as 
good  at  least  as  himself.  That  excellent  luminary  of  the  law, 
Sir  Matthew  Hale,  who  was  good  and  wise  above|jmost  other  men, 
has  left  this  memorable  sentence  on  record,  speaking  of  the  tes¬ 
timony  of  an  accomplice ;  “  and  truly  it  would  be  hard  to  take 
away  the  life  of  any  person  upon  such  a  witness,  that  swears  to 
save  bis  own,  unless  there  be  also  very  considerable  circumstan¬ 
ces  which  may  give  the  greater  credit  to  what  he  swears.”  Hale, 
pi.  cr.  305. 

Another  part  of  the  evidence  against  the  prisoners  at  the  bar, 
is  a  statement  by  one  of  the  accomplices,  of  certain  confessions 
made  by  the  prisoners  or  some  of  them,  in  hearing  of  the  wit¬ 
ness.  On  this,  probably  much  stress  will  be  laid,  as  affording 
proof,  not  only  of  the  share  of  guilt  they  had  in  the  transaction, 
but  as  shewing  that  they  have  hearts  devoid  of  social  duty,  and 
fatally  bent  on  mischief  These  confessions,  I  think  you  will  see, 
do  not  amount  to  much,  when  you  have  thoroughly  examined 
them.  Confessions  are  inadmissible  evidence  when  obtained  by 
promises  or  threats,  be  they  ever  so  slight.  It  is  deemed  unfair 
to  question  a  prisoner  when  under  the  influence  of  agitation  and 
fear.  The  mind,  under  such  circumstances,  is  confused,  and  an¬ 
swers  are  returned  to  questions,  without  thought  or  accurate  re¬ 
collection.  Although  the  authorities  seem  not  to  speak  out  fully, 
yet  they  all  favor  the  principle,  that  confessions  to  be  worth  any 
thing  as  evidence,  must  flow  from  some  contrition;  or  the  terms 
free  and  voluntary,  are  nugatory  ;  for  no  man  would  make  a  free 
and  voluntary  confession,  except  from  hope,  fear,  or  compunction 
of  conscience.  If  what  have  been  called  confessions,  were  made 
as  have  been  stated,  they  were  made  under  the  influence 
of  intoxication,  and  as  in  Vaughan’s  case,  must  be  considered 
as  a  nullity.  Men  are  answerable  for  their  deeds  when  drunk, 
but  not  for  their  words.  If  any  such  conversation  over  took 
place,  as  the  witness  has  stated,  the  whole  crew  were  in  high  ex¬ 
citement, and  over  their  grog  attempting  to  out-swagger  each  oth¬ 
er.  You  will  not  say,  even  if  something  of  this  sort  of  boasting 
did  occur,  that  men  shall  answer  with  their  lives  for  such  silly  and 
false  bravadoes.  If  confessions  sworn  to  by  honest  men  and  un¬ 
exceptionable  as  witnesses,  are  not  of  much  weight  in  the  scale 
of  evidence,  how  little  attention  should  be  paid  to  them  when 
narrated  by  an  accomplice.  These  multiplied  uncertainties  make 
what  is  extremely  doubtful,  which  is  nothing  as  evidence.  Open 
mouthed  credulity  would  hardily  swallow  such  a  tale  from  such  a 


44 


tnan  ;  and  common  sense  would  spurn  at  it  without  hesitation. 
There  is  another  rule  and  a  sound  one,  that  all  confessions,  what¬ 
ever  degree  of  credit  be  attached  to  them,  must  be  considered 
individually  and  not  generally.  A  cannot  confess  for  B,  nor  he  for 
another;  nor  can  a  part  of  one  man’s  confession  be  taken  without 
the  other  part.  If  this  were  not  so,  out  of  our  own  mouths  might 
we  be  condemned,  almost  any  day  of  our  lives.  This  whole  string 
of  confessions  are,  when  examined,  nothing  but  a  tale  of  riot  and 
merriment,  “  told  by  an  idiot”  and  a  knave,  “  full  of  sound  and 
fury,  signifying  nothing.” 

We  have,  gentlemen,  discussed  the  nature  of  the  testimony  of  the 
witnesses ;  it  may  not  be  improper  to  say  a  word  on  the  character 
of  these  men.  Stephen  Burnet  Onion,  who  sailed  from  Baltimore 
as  second  mate  of  the  schooner  Plattsburgh,  is  the  first.  Take  this 
man's  story  and  learn  his  worth.  After  the  transaction  of  the  22d 
of  July,  1816,  he  states  he  assisted  as  second  mate  ;  like  the  Vicar 
of  Bray,  he  was  determined  to  hold  his  office,  whoever  was  com- 
m  ader,  and  did,  until  she  arrived  at  Norway.  This  might  all 
have  been  explained  and  justified,  if  he  had  done  his  duty  after¬ 
wards,  when  he  was  in  a  Christian  country,  and  sure  of  protection. 
When  the  men  who  terrified  him  so  sadly,  and  compelled  him  to 
do  duty  on  board,  had  no  power  to  harm  him,  but  were  entirely 
in  his  hands — did  he  go  and  divulge  all  the  secrets  he  had  to  tell? 
No — he  kept  them,  and  the  booty  likewise,  and  entered  into  spec¬ 
ulations  with  the  prisoner,  Williams,  and  purchased  sugar  and  oth¬ 
er  articles  for  shipping.  He  had  turned  merchant  on  his  robber}", 
and  had  great  hopes  of  making  a  fortune,  no  (joubt.  Baynard, 
Hackett  and  Yeiser  were  only  remembered  by  some  precious  ar¬ 
ticles  he  had  of  them  in  his  possession.  This  man  entered  at  first 
into  Stromer’s  nefarious  plans,  or  the  plunder  won  his  heart.  A 
few  thousands  had  sealed  his  lips,  and  hi»  conscience  rested  quiet 
on  a  bag  of  silver.  Immaculate  creature  !  How  magnanimous 
and  just  are  your  deeds?  What  unbounded  confidence  ought  to 
be  placed  in  your  word  !  Gentlemen,  he  indeed  borrowed  the 
name  of  Yeiser,  and  went  under  his  protection ,  but  undoubtedly 
all  this  was  for  public  good,  that  he  might  be  brought  forward 
this  day  against  the  prisoners  !  Can  this  man  possibly  forgive  them 
he  has  so  vilely  injured  by  his  falsehoods?  Gentlemen,  I  am  not 
quarrelling  with  nature  nor  her  works ;  but  1  ask  you  just  to  turn 
your  eyes  on  this  witness's  face,  and  tell  me,  is  there  one  line  of 
honesty  or  veracity  to  be  found  there  ?  Will  you  put  the  lives  of 
men  in  jeopardy  on  such  testimony  ?  Will  you  believe  a  wretch 
who  had  not  sufficient  bravery  to  defend  himself  or  assist  others? 
A  man  who  had  sneaked  under  a  false  name,  and  who  meanly  be¬ 
trayed  those  he  had  assisted  to  seduce  ?  Will  you  rest  your  ver¬ 
dict  on  the  testimony  of  Stephen  Burnet  Onion,  steeped,  as  be  is, 
to  the  lips  in  guilt  ?  The  dastard  has  told  his  tale  to  save  his  life. 
He  may  live  long,  but  conscience,  like  the  vulture,  will  tear  his 
breast,  while  he  drags  out  the  remnant  of  his  days.  If  it  were 


45 


possible  for  him  to  escape  the  scorn  of  man,  he  never  will  escape 
from  himself.  Conscience  will  forever  make  a  coward  of  him. 
What  has  been  said  of  Onion  will  generally  apply  to  the  other 
witness,  Edmund  Samberson.  He  too,  was  an  accomplice.  He 
partook  of  the  spoils,  and  betrayed  his  coadjutors  in  plunder. 
Will  you  believe  his  statements  of  what  he  saw  and  heard,  when 
he  was,  from  his  own  account,  trembling  with  fear  of  corporeal 
harm  ?  In  the  darkness  and  confusion,  could  he  make  accurate 
observations  on  what  was  doing?  It  is  too  much  to  be  believed, 
gentlemen.  His  story  is  composed  of  after  thoughts,  suggestions, 
and  conjectures,  and  has  been  so  often  related  by  him,  that  he 
appears  to  have  the  confidence  of  a  man  of  truth. 

I  will  now  consider  the  facts  as  stated  by  the  witnesses.  The 
indictment  alleges  the  death  of  Thomas  Baynard  by  drowning. — 
The  first  question,  fur  you  to  decide  is,  Has  the  death  of  Thomas 
Baynard  happened  ?  One  of  the  witnesses  swears,  that  he  saw 
him  thrown  overboard,  and  afterwards  heard  his  cries  in  the  wa¬ 
ter,  and  that  he  never  saw  nor  heard  of  him  any  more.  I  grant, 
gentlemen,  that  for  all  common  purposes,  to  all  civil  interests, 
and  rights,  and  to  every  common  intent,  his  death  may  safely  be 
inferred  ;  but  gentlemen,  no  room  should  be  left  for  inference  in 
this  case.  The  death  must  be  shown  to  have  happened,  to  an 
absolute  certainty.  This  must  be  established  before  the  prison¬ 
ers  can  be  charged  with  the  crime  of  murder.  The  death  on  a 
charge  of  murder  is  not  to  be  proved  like  most  other  facts,  by  a 
preponderating  balance  of  probabilities,  but  the  testimony  must 
be  direct,  positive,  full  and  satisfactory,  not  leaving  the  shadow 
of  a  doubt  on  the  mind.  The  case  as  stated  by  the  judge  who 
tried  Hindmarsh,  mentioned  by  my  associate,  is,  that  a  child  was 
thrown  into  the  dock,  where  the  water  flowed  in  and  out,  and 
nothing  was  known  of  the  child  afterwards.  On  this  the  jury  were 
directed,  that  the  possibility  of  the  child’s  being  alive  took  away 
the  absolute  certainty  of  its  being  dead,  and  the  indictment  could 
not  be  supported.  Now  is  there  more  probability  in  the  case  as 
stated  in  this  trial,  than  in  the  present  case  ?  Is  it  not  as  probable 
that  Thomas  Baynard  is  now  alive  as  that  the  child  was  not  drown¬ 
ed  ?  Both  are  highly  improbable,  I  agree  ;  but  the  law  says,  that 
it  is  right  and  just  rather  to  reason  from  improbabilities,  than  to 
admit  uncertainties  in  such  a  case.  The  difference  between  a 
certainty  to  a  common  intent, and  a  certainty  to  an  absolute  intent,  is 
greater  than  we  commonly  imagine.  If  a  man  goes  out  to  sea  in  a 
small  boat, and  a  storm  arises, and  afterwards  the  boat  is  found  upset, it 
is  fair  and  just, to  all  common  purposes  and  intents, to  infer  that  he  has 
perished, hut  still  he  might  notbe  dead  ;  such  instances  have  occured 
in  our  time,  and  the  supposed  deceased  was  afterwards  found  to 
be  alive.  Would  you  not  say,  gentlemen,  that  a  man  who  was 
seen  going  ovor  the  falls  of  Niagara  in  a  skiff,  and  never  heard 
of  more,  was  dead  ?  Yet  men  have  gone  over  the  falls  safe,  and 
it  would  not  be  impossible  that  he  might  be  alive  whom  we 
thought  was  lost. 


46 


When  Daniel  was  cast  into  the  liorfs  den,  it  might  have  been 
fairly  inferred  that  he  was  instantly  destroyed,  but  still  that  infer¬ 
ence  would  have  been  false,  for  he  was  not  killed.  The  angel 
of  the  Lord  shut  the  mouths  of  the  famished  lions.  Does  not  that 
same  angel  walk  on  the  waters  to  rescue  his  charge  from  the 
deep  ?  It  was  indeed  a  special  providence,  but  that  special  pro¬ 
vidence  which  all  acknowledge,  but  which  no  one  can  define,  is 
constantly  operating  on  all  the  incidents  of  life. 

If  Baynard  should  at  this  time  come  into  this  court,  it  would 
surprise  us  ;  but  stranger  things  than  that  have  happened.  In 
this  case  you  have  no  right  to  conjecture  or  reason  upon  his  be¬ 
ing  dead.  The  only  question  is,  has  his  death  been  proved  to  a 
demonstration  ?  If  not,  then  your  inquiries  will  end  here,  even 
if  you  believe  the  witnesses. 

But  if  Baynard  be  dead,  who  killed  him  ?  Samberson  says,  that 
Williams  and  Rog  threw  him  into  the  sea.  But  allowing  him  for 
a  moment  to  be  a  fair  witness,  how  could  he  tell  precisely  who 
did  the  deed.  It  was  a  dark  night.  No  moon  rose  to  throw  her 
silver  mantle  on  the  waves,  and  no  star  was  seen  in  the  Heavens 
that  night  ;  all  was  as  dark  as  death.  It  was  impossible  for  Sam¬ 
berson  to  tell  who  threw  Baynard  into  the  sea.  He  could  not 
have  told  who  did  it,  even  if  he  had  been  perfectly  collected  and 
within  a  few  feet  of  them.  But  was  he  not,  from  his  own  ac¬ 
count,  nearly  frightened  out  of  his  senses  ?  How,  in  the  name  of 
truth,  I  ask,  could  this  witness  be  so  positive  in  such  a  scene  of 
confusion  and  dismay  ?  When,  if  it  had  been  open  day,  the  hardest 
nerves  of  innocence  would  have  trembled,  and  the  brightest  eye  ol 
bravery  have  closed  at  such  a  sight.  Were  Peterson  and  Fred¬ 
erick  there  at  that  time  ?  He  does  not  say,  for  he  could  find  no¬ 
thing  for  them  to  do,  and  his  tale  must  be  told  in  such  a  manner 
as  to  bring  home  the  murderers  severally  to  the  men,  who  were  ta¬ 
ken,  and  get  them  convicted,  that  he  might  be  entitled  to  free¬ 
dom,  for  his  services  to  the  country.  Where  was  the  arch  fiend 
Stromcr  and  his  hellish  confederates,  Smith,  Stacy  and  Raineaux? 
Were  they  spectators  of  this  horrid  scene,  so  greatful  to  their  in¬ 
fernal  dispositions  ?  Had  they  no  hand  u  in  this  deep  damnation 
of  his  taking  off?”  They  are  not  here,  and  Samberson  has  no  ob¬ 
ject  in  charging  them.  He  fears  that  if  he  had  stated  what  they 
did  that  night,  some  of  these  unhappy  men  might  escape,  and  that 
would  not  suit  his  purpose.  The  demons  of  murder  always  rea¬ 
son  on  such  a  deed,  that  “  If  it  were  done ,  when  ’tis  done,  then 
‘twere  well  it  were  done  quickly  and  it  is  not  probable,  that 
Baynard  was  left  stretched  on  the  deck  to  die,  but  was,  like  the 
others,  thrown  instantly  into  the  sea.  Diabolical  as  they  are  re¬ 
presented  to  be,  they  could  not  have  wished  to  hear  his  groans  ; 
for  he  had  not  injured  them,  and  was  lovely  and  amiable  to  all. 

It  is  said,  that  Frederick  had  a  gun  in  his  hand,  in  the  cabin, 
but  this  was  some  time  after  the  confusion  on  deck,  when  Baynard 
was  thrown  overboard.  If  he  had  taken  it  as  an  offensive  wea- 


47 


pon,  it  would  have  been  used  on  deck,  to  despatch  the  officers  ; 
but  neither  Onion  nor  Samberson  saw  him  have  it  there.  It  must 
therefore  have  been  seized  in  a  moment  of  agitation  for  self  de¬ 
fence.  This  may  seem  doubtful  if  you  believe  the  witnesses. 
But  let  us  for  a  moment  consider  how  this  whole  business  was  pro¬ 
bably  managed.  Stromer  is  represented  to  be  a  man  of  consider¬ 
able  acquirements,  who  had  been  commander  of  large  vessels, 
broken  down  and  degraded  by  his  vices  ;  and  so  reduced  in  his 
circumstances  as  to  be  under  the  necessity  of  shipping  as  a  com¬ 
mon  sailor.  He  had  associated  and  boarded  with  them  in  Balti¬ 
more,  and  knew  how  to  pick  his  men  for  an  enterprise  of  u  pith 
and  moment.”  Smith,  Stacy,  and  Raineaux  were  well  known  to 
him  ;  and  I  think  it  is  more  than  probable  that  this  plot  was  en¬ 
gendered  before  they  left  Baltimore.  They  soon  saw  the  material 
of  the  crew,  and  knew  to  whom  they  might  apply  for  aid  and  as¬ 
sistance.  There  are  always,  among  a  number,  some  men  who 
are  but  of  trifling  importance  to  the  daring  spirits  in  forming  an 
enterprize.  They  are  of  too  little  consequence  to  be  solicited  to 
join  a  plot  of  magnitude,  good  or  bad.  Stromer  had  his  secret 
council  about  him,  and  thought  but  little  of  such  men  as  Frederick 
and  Peterson.  They  might  or  might  not  be  with  him,  he  cared 
not  a  “  pin’s  fee.”  His  myrmidons  were  sufficient  for  taking  off 
the  officers  ;  and  all  the  small  folks  about  the  ship  he  was  sure  to 
awe  to  obedience  in  an  instant  after  the  legitimate  officers  of  the 
vessel  were  gone.  It  was  not  necessary  to  divulge  his  secret  ar¬ 
rangements,  for  such  a  man  is  sure  of  the  adhesion  of  those  who 
would  have  been  base  enough  to  have  joined  him,  had  they 
known  his  schemes.  He  is  sure  too  of  those  who  are  operated 
upon  by  their  fears  solely,  for  they,  poor  fools,  will  always  follow 
the  most  determined  and  resolute. — Frederick  was  an  Italian  sail¬ 
or,  and  passenger,  working  his  way  to  his  native  land,  and  was 
not  on  the  shipping  paper,  nor  did  he  consider  himself  as  one  of 
the  crew.  Peterson  was  a  boy,  and  would  have  dared  to  have 
met  a  shark  in  the  water  as  soon  as  he  would  have  ventured  to 
have  given  his  opinion  in  a  council  upon,  the  life  of  Onion.  Peter¬ 
son  says  he  was  ordered  upon  deck  by  Stromer,  and  he  obeyed. 
It  would  be  wanting  in  knowledge  of  human  nature  to  doubt  his 
story.  He  who  would  say,  “  why,  Stromer  was  only  your  equal,” 
you  need  not  have  regarded  his  order,  he  was  a  sailor  as  you  are, 
does  not  know  the  power  of  mind,  and  particularly  its  influence 
in  a  moment  of  anarchy  and  confusion.  The  government  on 
board  the  Plattsburgh  was  just  as  good  the  day  following  these 
horrible  events  as  ever  it  was.  This  shows  every  thinghad  been 
arranged  by  a  few  only. 

I  will  now  call  you  attention  to  the  evidence  in  the  case  of 
White.  Plis  own  account  of  himself  is,  that  he  left  the  deck  at 
twelve  and  did  not  quit  his  birth  until  between  three  and  four  in 
the  morning ;  that  he  had  no  participation  in  what  transpired,  eith¬ 
er  in  thought,  word  or  deed;  that  he  knew  that  the  vessel  was  to 


48 


be  taken  from  the  officers,  and'as  he  understood,  they  were  to  be 
put  into  a  boat  that  they  might  reach  St.  Mary’s.  He  feared  to 
tell  the  officers,  thinking  that  it  would  produce  not  only  his  own 
death  but  the  massacre  of  them.  He  joined  them  afterwards  and 
assisted  in  working  the  vessel  and  shared  the  money  with  the 
crew  to  save  himself.  Let  us  look  at  Samberson’s  testimony. 
He  sa}rs  that  he  saw  White  on  deck  at  the  braces  or  some  other 
part  of  the  rigging,  assisting  to  work  the  vessel,  but  he  was  pro¬ 
foundly  still.  The  next  time  he  saw  him,  was  in  the  cabin  coun¬ 
cil  upon  Onion’s  life,  but  he  did  not  talk  about  Onion,  but  laugh¬ 
ed  and  talked  about  other  matters — he  also  heard  him  say  that 
coffee  was  unnecessary,  when  Stromer  ordered  it,  and  that  he 
took  a  glass  of  whiskey  with  Stromer;  was  cheerful,  gay,  and 
full  of  stories  all  the  remainder  of  the  voyage — but  never  heard 
him  boast  of  any  share  in  the  transaction.  This  is  the  amount  of 
his  testimony ;  take  this  alone,  it  is  nothing,  but  wffien  taken  in 
connection  with  facts,  and  circumstances  which  have  transpired, 
and  with  Onion’s  testimony,  all  suspicions  of  his  having  a  share  in 
the  villany,  are  gone.  Onion  did  not  see  White  when  he  came 
out  of  the  bread  locker  at  the  request  of  the  council  held  upon 
his  life  ;  and  certainly  if  he  had  been  there  Onion  must  have 
seen  him.  If  he  had  spoken  any  way  for  or  against  him,  his  ear 
could  not  have  mistaken  sounds  at  such  a  moment,  when  his  life 
perhaps  depended  on  a  word.  White  was  not  there  ;  Samberson 
lies.  White  would  not  have  dared  to  counteract  an  order  of  Stro¬ 
mer  at  such  a  time,  and  therefore  never  said  any  thing  about  the 
coffee.  Stromer  had  his  first  meal  in  the  cabin  in  perfect  order, 
not  one  of  his  associates  was  there-^— his  officers  only  sat  at  the 
table  of  this  demon.  Onion  further  says,  that  while  the  crew 
were  handling  the  money,  White  whispered  in  his  ear  his  horror 
at  such  a  deed,  and  disavowed  all  participation  in  the  business. 
If  he  had  been  one  of  the  fellows  of  Stromer,  would  he  have 
dared  to  make  such  confessions?  Could  he  have  wished  to  make 
such  a  statement  ?  If  Samberson  is  believed,  the  most  of  them 
on  this  sabbath  of  rapine  and  murder,  when  the  money  was  divid¬ 
ed,  revelled  with  savage  joy  in  the  recollections  of  their  atrocity. 
Tne  statements  of  Onion  are  all  in  favor  of  White  ;  his  demean¬ 
or,  his  confessions,  in  fact,  every  thing  Onion  saw  or  heard,  was 
in  favor  of  White.  Samberson  says  that  he  was  full  of  glee. 
This  is  the  strongest  circumstance  that  can  be  adduced  in  favor 
of  his  innocence ;  for  if  he  had  been  delighted  in  thinking  that 
the  vessel  was  taken,  the  very  pleasure  would  have  induced  him 
to  allude  to  it  frequently.  He  would  hay.e  been  in  great  fellow¬ 
ship  with  the  rest  of  the  crew  upon  this  exploit.  He  was  gay, 
precisely  as  any  one  would  be,  whose  sincerity  in  the  busi¬ 
ness  was  doubted.  Both  witnesses  say  they  were  as  cheer¬ 
ful  as  they  could  be,  and  made  exertions  to  be  pleas¬ 
ant;  and  you,  gentlemen,  from  you  knowledge  of  mankind,  will 
say,  that  it  is  natural  for  a  man,  under  such  circumstances, to  put  a 


49 


forced  smile  upon  his  countenance.  Many  an  aching  heart  has  been 
hid  under  a  smile,  and  jollity  and  mirth  have  been  tne  necessary 
disguise  of  horror-struck  minds.  In  days  of  revolution  and  blood¬ 
shed,  this  happens  every  hour. 

In  situations  of  personal  danger,  all  classes  of  men  have  nearly 
the  same  feelings,  varied  more  by  their  constitutions  than  bv  their 
information.  The  memory  and  invention  of  White,  were  quickened 
in  detailing  these  stories  to  amuse  the  crew,  for  he  saw  that  they 
turned  their  attention  from  him  to  his  stories.  The  thousand  and 
one  Arabian  tales,  whose  beauties  have  delighted  children  and  phi¬ 
losophers  for  ages,  were  invented  day  by  day,  to  soften  the  wrath 
and  arrest  the  dagger  of  a  despot.  W  hite’s  stories  were  of  a  differ¬ 
ent  sort,  and  weask  no  credit  for  their  wit  or  delicacy.  They  were 
told  to  screen  him  from  danger,  and  they  answered  his  pur¬ 
pose  ;  and  that  is  sufficient.  What  different  conduct,  gentlemen, 
could  you  have  asked  of  a  sailor  ?  His  course  was  wise  and  prudent 
as  to  himself,  and  it  did  no  harm  to  any  one.  His  lamentations, 
however  loudly  uttered,  could  not  have  called  from  the  bosom  of  the 
deep,  those  who  were  said  to  have  been  cast  there.  _  A  word  ot 
murmuring  would  have  plunged  him  after  them.  Through  the  whole 
affair,  he  took  just  such  a  part  as  an  ignorant,  good  hearted,  honest 
but  sagacious  man,  would  have  done.  He  regarded  that  law,  which 
is  said  to  be  the  first  in  nature — self  preservation.  He  vtas  silent 
when  complaining  would  have  been  useless;  he  acquiesced  when 

3osition  would  have  been  death.  If  his  blood  is  wanted  to  satisfy 
iscriminate  public  vengeance,  let  it  be  shed  ;  but  if  you  wish  to 
raise  a  monument  of  justice  amid  the  convulsions  and  throes  of  the 
public,  spare  him;  and  your  children  and  posterity,  to  the  latest 
period,  shall  reverence  the  memory  of  men  who  dared,  at  such  a 
moment,  to  be  just  and  discriminating.  May  the  proud  recollec¬ 
tions  of  virtuous  independence,  be  yours  ;  and  “that  calm  sunshine 
of  the  breast,”  which  is  a  foretaste  of  a  better  world.  This  is  an 
important  moment  of  your  lives  ;  but  j  udge  ye  upon  such  principles 
as  you  wish  to  be  judged  by,  and  you  cannot  do  wrong. 

“ - To  thine  own  self  be  true  ; 

And  it  must  follow,  as  the  night  the  day, 

Thou  canst  not  then  be  false  to  any  man.” 

The  fate  of  mere  seamen  is  hard  beyond  that  of  any  other  class 
of  men  in  the  community.  Their  prospects  are  that  of  perpetual 
drudgery  and  privation.  Their  toils  are  endless,  their  hopes  noth¬ 
ing.  They  are  required  to  conform  to  the  strictest  regulations, 
without  any  moral  instruction.  Instead  of  living  like  other  men,  and 
having  line  upon  line  and  precept  upon  precept,  their  only  stimulus 
to  do  right  are  a  few  hearty  curses  for  doing  wrong.  The  examples 
before  them  are  frequently  none  of  the  best.  They  endure  much, 
enjoy  but  little,  and,,anticipate  less.  Yet  on  this  class  of  men  much 
of  our  prospects,  much  of  our  dignity  and  glory  depend.  Our  naval 
fame  and  honor  rest  chiefly  on  this  hardy  race  of  citizens.  Com¬ 
manders  may  be  found  every  where.  Reputation  makes  officers 
brave  and  skilful,  but  sailors  must  be  heroes,  without  the  hope  o'j 

c* 

i 


50 


individual  distinction.  Their  only  elevation  rests  on  the  reputation 
of  all  their  kind.  These  men  will  be  fostered  with  care  by  a  nation 
•who  knows  her  true  interests,  and  their  follies  and  errors  corrected 
with  tenderness.  Those  we  have  adopted  partake  of  the  spirit  of 
our  true  born  sailors.  The  influence  of  liberty,  like  that  of  magnet¬ 
ism,  is  communicated  to  all  it  touches.  They  fight  and  bleed  under 
the  Eagle  of  our  republic.with  a  spirit  that  an  imperial  banner  never 
inspired.  They  are  held  as  a  better  class  ot  men  among  us  than  in 
other  countries  ;  and  this  is  the  principal  reason  of  their  superiority. 
If  you  wish  to  break  the  talisman  and  dissolve  the  charm  ;  if  you 
wish  to  blast  your  naval  glories, and  sink  in  infamy  your  naval  crow  n, 
hang  and  gibbet,  at  every  corner,  for  the  slightest  offences,  your 
bravest  seamen  ;  treat  their  errors  as  crimes,  and  hold  their  crimes 
as  unpardonable  ;  keep  them  from  the  common  indulgences  in  fa¬ 
vor  of  human  life,  and  hunt  them  down  with  unsparing  vengeance, 
and  you  will  easily  effect  your  wishes.  It  requires  but  a  short  time 
to  destroy  the  heroic  spirit  which  it  cost  ages  to  rear.  The  protec¬ 
tion  of  seamen  is  one  of  the  safeguards  of  commerce.  Wholesome 
restraint  is  a  part  of  protection,  but  severity  is  not.  Of  the  impor¬ 
tance  of  our  commercial  relations,  there  is  now  but  one  opinion  ;  all 
agree  that  no  nation  can  be  great  and  powerful  and  happy  without 
commerce.  Commerce  is  not  only  the  golden  chain  which  binds  to¬ 
gether  the  world,  but  it  is  also  the  golden  mean  to  all  noble  ends; 
the  patroness  of  agriculture  and  the  arts.  Our  nation  has  felt  its 
rapid  and  cheering  influence.  Two  centuries  have  changed  the  skiff 
and  the  canoe,  whose  freight  was  muscles  and  shrimps,  to  numerous 
fleets,  laden  with  the  wealth  of  the  world,  and  tall  navies,  riding 
triumphant  in  victory.  “  Our  merchants  are  princes,  and  our  traf¬ 
fickers  the  honorable  of  the  earth  ”  They  extend  their  influence 
not  only  to  arts  and  agriculture,  but  to  science  and  letters.  They 
rival  the  proud  munificence  of  the  Medici,  in  lavishing  their  wealth 
on  seminaries  of  learning  and  institutions  of  charity.  But  afterev- 
ery  praise,  it  is  the  nature  of  our  existence,  and  the  fate  of  man, 
that  every  excellence  has  some  concomitant  evil,  and  every  pur¬ 
suit  some  bias  or  prejudice.  That  which  arises  from  a  crowded 
population  and  an  extended  trade,  is  a  too  great  susceptibility  of 
feeling,  on  subjects  nearly  or  remotely  connected  with  its  interests. 
This  not  unfrequently  misleads  the  judgment  of  the  best  of  men. 
The  larger  the  commercial  city,  the  more  inflammable  is  public 
feeling.  A  single  rumour  has  agitated  Venice  in  her  most  pros¬ 
perous  days  ;  and  a  single  stockjobbing  story  on  the  exchange  ol 
London  has  carried  consternation,  confusion  and  ruin  to  thousands. 
It  is  impossible  for  the  wisest  and  firmest  to  resist  a  general  im¬ 
pulse.  These  stories  generally  soon  evaporate,  but  sometimes 
citizens  are  called  to  decide  as  jurymen,  on  subjects  connected 
with  the  excitement  before  it  has  entirely  passed  away.  Then 
comes  the  struggle.  The  great  and  fair  mind  divests  itself  of  all 
impressions,  and  comes  into  the  hall  of  judgment  in  the  hallowed 
nakedness  of  truth.  The  feeble  mind  and  dependant  spirit  catch 
opinions  as  they  float  on  the  breeze,  and  of  course  frequently 


51 


form  such  decisions  as  sober  and  mature  reflection  condemns,  and 
the  innocent  suffer  with  the  guilty. 

Murder  by  violence  and  fury  is  a  heinous  offence,  but  legal  mur¬ 
der  by  incorrect  verdicts,  is  infinitely  worse.  The  slightest  sacri¬ 
fice  made  to  public  opinion,  can  never  be  wiped  away  in  a  case  of 
this  kind.  The  damned  spot  can  never  be  washed  out.  It  will  go 
down  to  the  latest  period  without  atonement.  Time  will  point 
his  finger  at  such  a  stain  in  every  hour  of  his  existence.  The  Brit¬ 
ish  Admiral  Byng  fell  a  victim  to  a  momentary  spasm  of  public  in¬ 
dignation  ;  and  his  ghost  enters  to  mar  the  joy  of  every  festival 
instituted  to  commemorate  the  naval  glory  of  Britain.  He  did 
not  fall  by  intrigue  or  malignity,  but  by  an  extraordinary  impulse 
of  public  resentment. 

Gentlemen,  the  advocate  for  government  will  follow  us.  His 
talents  and  experience  will  be  set  in  array  against  the  prisoners. 
From  the  nature  of  his  office,  he  holds  the  flaming  sword  of  power, 
which  turns  every  way  to  destroy,  and  when  such  an  instrument 
is  wielded,  as  it  now  is,  by  the  hand  of  genius  and  learning,  what 
unfortunate  wretch  can  escape,  unless  tne  justice  and  mercy  in 
your  breasts  turn  its  edge  and  ward  off  the  blow.  The  prisoners 
are  in  your  hands,  gentlemen,  under  the  instructions  of  a  humane 
and  a  wise  court,  who  individually  could  say,  “  have  I  any  pleas¬ 
ure  at  all  that  the  wicked  should  die?”  Men  not  wavering  “at 
opinion’s  shock  ;”but  men,  who,  from  Christian  mercy  and  philan¬ 
thropic  tenderness,  love,  when  possible,  to  save. 

The  counsel  in  behalf  of  the  prisoners  having  concluded  their 
defence,  George  Blake,  Esquire,  the  District  Attorney,  address¬ 
ed  the  Jury,  on  the  part  of  government,  in  the  following  terms  : — 

May  it  please  your  Honors , 

Jlnd  you,  Gentlemen  of  the  Jury, 

Having  entertained  the  belief,  at  the  commencement  of  the 
present  interesting  prosecution,  that  it  might  possibly  be  necessary 
for  the  prosecutor  to  bring  to  its  support  a  degree  of  learning  and 
talent,  in  some  measure  proportionate  to  the  public  expectation, 
and  to  the  importance  of  the  cause,  in  every  point  of  view,  I  am 
not  ashamed  to  avow  the  fearful  apprehensions  I  had  felt  of  my  in¬ 
ability  to  perform  the  duty  in  a  manner  suitable  to  the  occasion, 
I  scarcely  dared  presume  that  the  measure  of  strength  which  I 
posses?,  either  of  body  or  mind,  would  enable  me  to  endure,  singly 
and  albne,  the  weight  of  responsibility  which  was  about  to  devolve 
upon  me. 

I  will,  however,  frankly  confess  to  you,  gentlemen,  that  upon 
further  consideration  of  the  testimony,  and  upon  a  more  full  and 
deliberate  view  of  the  whole  merits  of  this  cause,  every  apprehen¬ 
sion  of  the  kind  before  mentioned,  has  been  completely  dissipated  ; 
and  in  every  thing  but  the  power  of  depicting,  with  sufficient  force 
and  strength,  the  deep  malignity  of  the  crimes  imputed  to  these 


defendants,  I  have  the  confidence  to  believe  myself  as  vveli  quali¬ 
fied,  as  though  I  were  a  much  abler  advocate,  to  do  every  thing 
that  can  be  necessary  in  vindicating,  upon  the  present  occasion, 
the  cause  of  justice. 

It  is  a  consideration  which  has  afforded  much  relief  to  my  mind, 
on  this  occasion,  and  which  to  you.  also,  must,  I  am  persuaded,  be 
a  source  of  no  inconsiderable  satisfaction,  that  whatever  may  be  the 
magnitude  and  the  importance  of  the  cause  now  on  trial,  it  is  one 
of  no  real,  intrinsic  difficulty  ;  that  it  is  a  cause  upon  whose  merits, 
cither  as  to  the  law  or  the  fact,  it  would  seem  scarcely  possible 
that  an  upright  and  intelligent  jury,  such  as  I  well  know  vou  are, 
could  be  brought  to  pronounce  an  unjust  or  erroneous  decision. 

The  nature  of  this  indictment,and  of  the  crime  therein  describ¬ 
ed,  has  already  been  fully  stated  to  you  at  the  opening  of  the  pro¬ 
secution.  The  question  which  arises  upon  it  is,  whether  the  de¬ 
fendants  at  the  bar,  or  which  or  either  of  them,  are  guilty  of  the 
murder  of  Thomas  Bavnard.  in  manner  and  form  as  alleged  against 
them.  In  the  examination  of  this  question,  although  many  other 
mortal  murders  and  misdeeds  have,  necessarily,  been  opened  to 
your  view,  in  the  course  of  our  evidence,  yet  I  am  bound  to  agree 
with  the  learned  counsel  for  the  prisoners,  that  it  is  the  specific 
crime  alone,  which  is  charged  in  this  indictment,  that  must  be  re¬ 
garded  as  the  only  proper  object  of  your  present  enquiry.  I  agree, 
also,  most  fully,  with  the  gentlemen  on  the  other  side,  that  it  is 
incumbent  on  the  government,  if  they  would  claim  your  verdict  of 
conviction  against  all  or  either  of  the  prisoners  at  the  bar,  to  sub¬ 
stantiate  the  accusation,  by  clear  and  indisputable  evidence  :  and 
t  hat  if  a  reasonable  doubt  shall,  after  all,  be  perceived  to  exist  in 
the  case,  it  ought  to  be  considered,  upon  the  humane  principles  of 
our  law,  as  affording  most  unquestionable  grounds  for  an  acquittal. 

It  is,  bow'ever,  gentlemen,  a  very  erroneous  and  unfounded  posi¬ 
tion  which  has  been  assumed  and  pressed  upon  you,  with  so  much 
confidence,  by  the  learned  counsel  for  the  prisoners,  and  which  in¬ 
deed  appears  to  be  the  basis  of  all  their  refined  and  ingenious 
speculations  on  this  occasion, that  the  bare  jmssibility  of  innocence, 
can  be  sufficient  in  a  legal  point  of  view,  to  counteract,  even  in  a 
capital  trial,  all  the  fair  and  ordinary  presumptions  of  guilt.  If 
such  a  doctrine  were  to  hold  good,  it  is  easy  to  perceive,  that  the 
whole  system  of  criminal  jurisprudence,  and  every  salutary  regu¬ 
lation  by  which  are  governed  the  minds  and  morals  and  actions  of 
man,  as  a  member  ot  society,  would,  at  once  be  overthrown.  I 
need  not  remind  you  that,  in  the  administration  of  justice  by  any 
earthly  tribunal,  it  is  obviously  impossible  to  arrive  at  any  certain 
and  infallible  results.  It  is  by  the  aid  of  that  science  only,  whose 
employment  is  confined  to  the  actual  numbering  and  mensuration 
of  its  subjects,  that  w  e  can  ever  hope  to  establish  the  truth  of  any 
proposition,  however  plain  or  simple,  with  absolute,  unerring  cer¬ 
tainty,  and  without  leaving  upon  the  mind  a  possibility  of  doubt. 
With  regard  to  every  thing  pertaining  to  the  science  of  law,  the 
affairs  of  civil  government,  as  well  indeed  as  all  the  common  am! 


53 


ordinary  concerns  of  life,  if  we  act  at  all,  we  must  be  content  to 
proceed  without  the  aid  of  demonstration,  and  upon  the  ground  of 
mere  probabilities  and  presumptions.  So  true  is  this,  that  I  will 
venture  to  pronounce  that,  upon  the  principles  which  have  been  ad¬ 
vanced  by  the  counsel  for  the  prisoners,  it  would  be  utterly  impos¬ 
sible,  in  any  case  of  murder  that  can  be  imagined,  to  bring  the  of¬ 
fender  to  conviction,  unless  every  member  of  the  jury  itnpannelled 
for  the  trial  of  the  cause,  should  happen  to  have  been  himself 
an  eye  witness  of  the  deed,  and  could  therefore  found  his  decision 
on  the  evidence  of  his  own  senses  and  perceptions.  Let  us  sup¬ 
pose  a  case  where  the  death  of  the  party  slain,  as  in  the  instance 
now  before  us,  appears  to  have  been  instantaneous  A  man  is 
found  dead  in  our  streets,  and  from  an  examination  in  the  body,  it 
appears  that  the  death  may  have  been  caused  by  a  gun  shot  wound. 
Several,  if  you  please,  a  half  a  dozen  witnesses  were  present  at 
the  death, and  were  produced  in  court, to  testify  relative  to  its  cause 
and  the  circumstances  attending  it.  They  are  all  men  of  credibil¬ 
ity  and  their  respective  statements  of  the  transaction  are  clear, 
and  consistent.  By  the  united  testimony  of  these  witnesses,  it 
would  appear  that  the  party  accused  of  the  murder,  had,  in  their 
presence,  leveled  and  discharged  a  musket  upon  the  deceased ; 
that  he  fell  and  expired  in  their  presence  ;  and  that  the  firing  of 
the  gun,  as  far  as  they  could  judge,  must  have  been  the  immedi¬ 
ate  cause  of  the  catastrophe.  Here,  gentlemen  is  presented  to 
you  a  case,  where  the  evidence  is  clear,  and  what  the  law  would 
denominate  positive.  Yet  even  here,  and  it  is  one  of  the  strongest 
examples  that  can  be  stated,  a  moment’s  consideration  will  con¬ 
vince  us  that  a  verdict  of  conviction  could  never  be  pronounced, 
but  upon  the  strength  of  that  evidence  after  all,  which  results  from 
mere  analogy  and  deduction,  and  which  is  not  positive,  but  merely 
circumstantial  or  presumptive.  Suppose  in  the  case  I  have  ima¬ 
gined  the  fact  of  discharging  the  musket  were  admitted  ;  that  the 
evil  and  deliberate  intention  were  avowed  ;  but  that  some  higher 
degree  of  proof  than  that  which  is  derived  from  mere  analogical 
reasoning,  and  the  opinions  of  frail,  and  fallible  men,  should  be  de¬ 
manded  at  the  trial,  by  way  of  establishing,  beyond  all  possible 
doubt,  that  the  act  complained  of,  was  the  cause  of  the  death  ? 

Is  r,t  not  manifest,  that,  as  to  the  cause  of  the  death ,  in  the  case 
here  supposed,  which,  on  every  indictment  for  homicide,  is  no  less 
a  leading  and  principal  question  than  the  evil  intention  of  the 
party  accused,  the  evidence  would  be  derived  only  from  the  opin¬ 
ions  and  judgment  of  men,  and  would  therefore  belong  to  that  same 
species  of  presumptive  proof,  which  has  been  deemed  so  inconclu¬ 
sive  on  the  present  occasion  ? 

But,  gentlemen,  the  difficulty,  the  impossibility,  indeed  of  de¬ 
monstrating,  by  means  of  mere  direct*  and  absolute  proof,  every 
fact  which  is  essential  to  constitute  the  crime  of  murder,  may  be 
still  more  strikingly  exemplified,  in  a  case  where  the  death,  in¬ 
stead  of  being  sudden,  shall  appear  at  the  trial,  to  have  been  pro¬ 
tracted  and  lingering.  We  will  suppose  the  case,  when  the  charge 


54 


m  the  indictment  is  for  killing,  by  the  application  of  poison.  It  is 
proved  before  the  jury  that  when  the  deleterious  drug  was  ad¬ 
ministered  to  the  deceased,  he  was  in  the  full  vigour  of  health,  but 
immediately  afterwards,  exhibited  the  usual  symptoms  which  might 
be  expected  in  such  a  case.  “  He  languishes,  yet  lives,”  for  weeks 
and  even  for  months,  but  dies  at  last,  from  the  apparent  effects  of 
the  fatal  draught.  What  man  is  there  upon  eartn,  who  without  a 
doubt,  I  will  not  say  a  reasonable  doubt,  upon  his  mind,  could  pro¬ 
nounce,  in  such  a  case,  a  conviction  of  murder  ?  The  poison  may 
be  proved  to  have  been  deadly,  and  infallible  in  its  consequence  ; 
but  who  could  have  the  presumption  to  declare  without  a  doubt, 
that  it  was  the  efficient  cause  of  the  death  that  ensued  ?  Who 
would  venture  to  pronounce,  with  that  entire  certainty ,  which 
seems  to  be  considered  so  essential  on  the  present  occasion,  that 
the  intended  victim  may  not,  after  all,  have  perished  by  the  su¬ 
pervention  of  some  other  mortal  disease  ;  that  the  man  whose 
breath  “  w'as  in  his  nostrils,”  who  at  every  moment  of  his  exist¬ 
ence  was  subject  to  the  sudden  and  awful  visitations  of  Provi¬ 
dence,  may  not  have  been  thus  snatched  by  the  express  decree  of 
his  Maker  from  the  fell  purpose  of  the  murderer  ? 

Gentlemen,  in  this  and  in  other  countries,  the  cases  of  the 
description  here  alluded  to,  are  not  by  any  means  of  unfrequent 
occurrence  ;  and  yet  it  was  never  imagined  that  the  reputed  mur¬ 
derer  could  escape  from  justice  upon  any  doubts  or  speculations  of 
the  nature  here  described. 

In  the  case  just  supposed,  the  judgment  of  the  jury  is  aided  at 
the  trial  by  the  skill,  and  experience  of  the  physician  ;  the  nature 
of  the  poison  is  examined,  its  usual  effects  on  the  human  constitu¬ 
tion  explained,  and  by  this  mere  process  of  deduction  from  rea¬ 
soning  aod  analogies,  the  mind  becomes  as  fully  convinced,  (not 
however  without  the  possibility  of  error,)  as  to  the  cause  of  this 
death,  as  though  the  evidence  of  the  fact  were  direct  and  positive. 

In  a  word,  gentlemen,  the  legal  principles  of  evidence,  in  crimi¬ 
nal  and  even  capital  causes,  notwithstanding  the  multitude  of  cases 
which  have  been  read  to  you  from  the  books,  and  all  the  ingenious 
reasoning  of  counsel,  with  the  view  of  intimidatingyou  on  this  sub¬ 
ject,  are  by  no  means,  essentially  different  from  such  as  are  ap¬ 
plicable  to  mere  questions  of  property,  or  any  common  Concern 
between  man  and  man.  In  all  cases,  whether  civil  or  criminal, 
the  decision  of  a  jury  should  be  the  result  of  careful  consideration, 
the  expression  of  a  clear,  honest,  unhesitating  opinion,  according  to 
a  manifest  preponderance  of  the  evidence  ;  and  more  than  tliis, 
cannot  be  expected  of  those  to  whom  belongs  the  determination 
of  any  fact  before  an  earthly  tribunal. 

Gentlemen,  1  have  heard  it  stated,  and  from  my  own  observa¬ 
tion  of  the  visionary  scruples,  which  have  sometimes  been  excited 
by  the  power  of  eloquence  in  a  capital  trial,  I  am  induced  to  be¬ 
lieve  the  fact,  that  a  juror  has  been  known  to  favour  an  acquittal 
in  such  a  case,  not  because  he  could  doubt  the  guilt  of  the  accused 
but  because,  as  every  thing  was  uncertain,  he  had  distrusted  his 


55 


own  capacity  to  form  a  correct  judgment  upon  the  question.—^- 
Permit  me  to  say,  that,  however  chimerical  and  preposterous  a 
hesitance  on  such  grounds,  may  seem  to  be,  it  is  not  more  so,  in 
my  own  view  of  the  subject,  than  that  a  doubt  should  be  enter¬ 
tained,  with  regard  to  most,  and  indeed  all  the  material  facts 
which  I  have  attempted  to  establish  before  you,  on  the  present 
occasion. 

Having  submitted  to  you  these  preliminary  observations,  which 
in  reference  to  the  whole  scope  and  bearing  of  the  arguments  on 
the  other  side,  have  appeared  to  me,  if  not  necessary,  yet  as  being 
seasonable  and  appropriate,  I  will  now  proceed  to  the  immediate 
consideration  of  the  evidence  which  has  been  adduced  in  support 
of  the  present  indictment.  No  witnesses  have  been  sworn  and  no 
evidence  adduced  in  behalf  of  the  prisoners  ;  but  the  grounds  as¬ 
sumed  by  their  counsel,  are — 

First,  that  it  has  not  been  proved  before  you,  beyond  all  doubt, 
that  Thomas  Baynard,  whose  murder  is  charged  upon  the  pri¬ 
soners,  is  certainly  dead  ;  that  the  body  of  this  man  not  having  been 
found  since  it  is  supposed  to  have  been  cast  into  the  sea,  affords 
legal  ground  of  doubts  as  to  the  fact  of  his  death. 

Secondly,  that  from  all  the  evidence  in  the  cause,  it  is  appa¬ 
rent  that  the  principal  witnesses  for  the  prosecution,  namely,  Onion 
and  Samberson,  were  accomplices  in  the  crime,  if  any  were  com¬ 
mitted  ;  and  that  the  testimony  of  such  witnesses  is  insufficient  to 
justify  a  conviction. 

Thirdly,  that  neither  of  the  prisoners,  and  particularly  Nathan¬ 
iel  White,  had  been  sufficiently  identified  as  principals  in  the 
death  of  Thomas  Baynard. 

Gentlemen  of  the  jury,  it  will  be  my  endeavor,  in  the  course 
of  my  remarks  upon  the  evidence,  to  refute  each  of  these  objec¬ 
tions  ;  and  I  shall  be  much  disappointed  indeed,  if  I  do  not  succeed 
in  this  attempt,  to  your  entire  and  most  perfect  satisfaction. 

At  the  very  presentment  of  the  case,  as  1  have  just  stated  it  to 
you,  it  is  obvious  that  the  questions  which  have  arisen,  are  prin¬ 
cipally,  if  not  entirely,  questions  of  mere  fact,  upon  wffiich  it  is  the 
peculiar  and  exclusive  privilege  of  a  jury  to  determine.  With  re¬ 
gard  to  the  principles  of  law  which  are  applicable  to  the  case, 
I  am  not  aware  that  there  is  any  material  disagreement  be.tw'een 
myself  and  the  learned  counsel  for  the  defendants  ;  and  I  would 
take  occasion  here  to  repeat,  that  if  you  rightly  understand,  as  no- 
doubt  you  do,  that  little  portion  of  law,  those  few  plain  and  very 
familiar  principles  laid  down  in  the  half  dozen  lines  that  were 
read  to  you  from  one  book  of  authority,  at  the  opening  of  this 
cause,  you  are  in  possession  of  all  the  law  that  can  be  necessarv 
to  lead  you  to  a  just  and  correct  decision. 

Are  you  then  convinced,  from  the  evidence  which  has  been  giv¬ 
en  you  ;  are  you  convinced,  beyond  any  reasonable  doubt ,  that 
Thomas  Baynard  the  person  mentioned  in  this  indictment,  was  ac¬ 
tually  “  killed  and  murdered on  the  high  seas,  by  ail  or  eitherof 
the  defendants  at  the  bar  ? 


56 


I  have  perceived,  gentlemen,  with  some  degree  of  surprise, 
that  the  very  intelligent  counsel  who  have  displayed  so  much  tal¬ 
ent  and  eloquence  in  behalf  of  their  clients,  have  nevertheless, 
throughout  the  whole  scope  of  their  remarks,  entirely  miscon¬ 
ceived  my  views  of  the  evidence  in  this  cause,  by  supposing  that 
the  fate  of  this  indictment  were  entirely  or  materially  dependant 
upon  the  uncorroborated  testimony  of  the  two  supposed  accom¬ 
plices,  whose  credibility,  and  even  competency  has  been  considered 
so  extremely  questionable.  That  the  testimony  of  these  witnesses 
may  be  important,  by  way  of  explanation  and  confirmation  of  the 
presumptions  naturally  arising  from  other  evidence  which  has  been 
adduced,  I  certainly  will  not,  for  a  moment,  deny  ;  but  that  it  is 
not  the  basis  of  all  the  proof  which  has  been  exhibited  in  support 
of  the  prosecution  ;  that  it  is  not.  indeed,  the  main  and  most  es¬ 
sential  branch  of  that  proof,  will  be  made  I  think,  to  appear  to 
you,  in  the  sequel  of  my  remarks,  as  clear  as  a  sun  beam.  The 
truth  is,  gentlemen,  that  from  my  first  acquaintance  with  the  cir¬ 
cumstances  of  this  cause,  I  have  always  considered  that  the  evi¬ 
dence  which  would  be  derived  from  the  testimony  of  Mr.  M’Kim, 
the  owner  of  the  schooner  Plattsburgh,  and  from  Captain  De  la 
Roche,  the  gentleman  who  was  despatched  to  bring  that  vessel 
home  from  a  port  in  Norway,  as  being  the  evidence  that  lie  at  the 
foundation  of  the  cause  ;  and  every  thing  else  might  be  regarded 
as  collateral,  and  merely  auxiliary.  In  place,  therefore,  of  rest¬ 
ing  upon  Onion  and  Samberson  for  my  principal  proofs,  as  the 
gentlemen  on  the  other  side  seem  throughout  to  have  considered 
it  to  be  my  intention,  I  shall  be  disposed  to  resort  to  their  state¬ 
ments  merely  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  the  particular  inci¬ 
dents  and  circumstances  attending  a  transaction,  the  reality  of 
which  will,  in  my  opinion,  be  sufficiently  established,  not  indeed 
with  absolute  certainty ,  but  upon  the  strongest  probabilities  and 
presumptions  arising  from  the  testimony  of  the  other  witnesses. 

In  a  word  I  think  I  shall  be  able  to  satisfy  you,  by  the  testimo¬ 
ny  of  M’Kim  and  Ue  la  Roche,  that  the  murder  complained  of, 
must  undoubtedly  have  been  committed  by  the  prisoners  at  the 
bar,  and  hence,  that  the  testimony  of  Onion  and  Samberson  are 
no  otherwise  essential  than  as  serving  to  shew  the  time  when ,  man¬ 
ner  how ,  and  other  particular  circumstances  attending  the  perpe¬ 
tration  of  the  deed. 

So  strong,  indeed,  is  this  impression  upon  my  mind,  with  re¬ 
gard  to  the  nature  and  bearing  of  the  evidence  first  alluded  to, 
that  I  declare  to  you,  gentlemen,  that  were  it  not  for  the  tremen¬ 
dous  responsibility  which  rests  upon  me  ;  wrere  it  not  for  the  deep 
interests  which  you,  and  every  other  man  in  the  community  must 
feel,  in  the  cause  of  public  justice,  and  as  to  the  result  of  the 
present  trial,  I  should  not,  by  any  means,  have  considered  it  an 
act  ot  presumption,  had  I  consented  to  go  on  with  the  cause,  w  ith¬ 
out  the  aid  of  a  single  word  of  testimony  from  either  of  the  two 
reputed  accomplices. 


57 


Let  us  then  examine  the  evidence  that  has  been  adduced,  inde¬ 
pendently  of  these  men.  What  is  its  import,  and  what  the  con¬ 
clusions  which,  almost  necessarily  result  from  it  ?  From  the  tes¬ 
timony  of  Mr.  M’Kim,  (one  of  the  most  distinguished  and  respec¬ 
table  citizens  of  Baltimore,)  we  learn,  that  he  was  the  unfortu¬ 
nate  owner  of  the  schooner  Plattsburgh  ;  that  in  the  summer  of 
1816,  she  was  laden  at  the  port  of  Baltimore,  with  a  valuable 
cargo,  consisting  of  about  an  hundred  and  twenty  or  thirty  thous¬ 
and  pounds  of  coffee,  and  specie,  in  gold  and  silver,  amounting  to 
upwards  of  forty  thousand  dollars,  and  destined  for  a  voyage  to 
the  port  of  Smyrna,  in  the  Mediterranean ;  that  the  command  of 
this  vessel,  for  the  voyage,  was  confided  to  a  Capt.  Wm.  Hackett; 
that  a  person,  by  the  name  of  Frederick  E.  Yeizer  was  her  first 
officer;  and  Stephen  B  Onion,  one  of  the  witnesses  for  the  pro¬ 
secution,  the  second  mate  ;  that  the  trust  of  subercargo  for  this 
voyage,  was  confided  to  an  amiable  and  deserving  young  man, 
whom  the  owner  of  this  vessel  had  patronized,  and  befriended, 
by  the  name  of  Thomas  Baynard  ;  the  same  who  is  referred  to  in 
the  indictment,  as  the’  victim  of  these  murderers  ! — That  this  ves¬ 
sel  was,  originally,  built  by  Mr.  M’Kim  ;  was  an  excellent  vessel, 
and  unusually  well  found,  and  provided  for  the  contemplated 
voyage  That  the  captain,  both  mates,  and  supercargo,  were 
all  of  them,  natives  and  residents  in  the  state  of  Maryland  ;  for  a 
long  time,  therefore,  had  been  well  known  to  Mr.  M'Kim  ;  that 
all  had  sustained  unblemished  reputations,  and  that  the  families 
and  connexions  of  each  of  these  individuals,  were  decent  and 
respectable.  It  appears  also,  from  the  testimony  of  Mr.  M’Kim, 
and  from  the  voluntary  concessions  of  the  prisoners,  by  their 
counsel,  on  the  trial,  that  the  entire  crew  of  this  vessel,  at  her 
departure  from  Baltimore,  (including  the  cook,  whose  name  is 
not  remembered,  and  Samberson,  the  cabin  steward,)  made  up 
the  number  of  fourteen  men  ;  and,  that  the  five  prisoners  at  the 
bar,  together  with  a  person  by  the  name  of  Stromer,  were  of  this 
number  ; — That  the  vessel,  thus  provided  and  manned,  took  her 
departure  from  the  port  of  Baltimore,  apparently,  with  every 
circumstance  auspicious,  on  the  first  of  July,  of  the  year  before 
mentioned  ; — That  Mr.  M’Kim,  the  owner  of  the  schooner  had 
received  a  letter  from  his  captain,  a  few  days  subsequently,  ad¬ 
vising  him  of  the  departure  of  his  vessel  from  Cape  Henry,  upon 
the  contemplated  voyage  ;  that  from  that  period,  to  the  present 
day,  neither  he,  Mr.  M’Kim,  nor  any  person,  so  far  as  he  could 
say,  had  even  seen,  either  Captain  Hackett,  Baynard  or  Yeiser, 
nor  received  from  either  of  them,  by  letter,  or  otherwise,  a  syl¬ 
lable  of  intelligence. 

It  appears,  however,  from  the  statement  of  this  gentleman, 
that  having  been  apprised,  by  information  received  from  abroad, 
of  the  fate  which  had  befallen  his  vessel,  and  of  her  arrival  at  an 
obscure  port  in  Norway,  he  despatched  a  messenger,  Captain  De 
!a.  Roche,  whose  testimonvis  also  in  the  case,  for  the  purpose  of 
8 


58 


looking  after  the  property,  and  bringing  it  home  to  Baltimore. 
The  vessel,  with  some  small  part  of  the  property  on  board,  was 
brought  back  in  safety,  to  Baltimore,  by  Captain  De  la  Roche,  in 
the  summer  of  1817  ;  and  it  is  testified  by  Mr.  M’Kim,  that  he 
received  at  the  same  time,  or  at  some  time  subsequently,  from  a 
Mr.  Isaacson,  the  American  Consul,  at  Christiansand,  in  Norway, 
remittances  of  divers  sums  of  money  ;  amounting  to  several 
thousand  dollars,  purporting  to  be  portions  of  specia,  which  bad 
been  found  in  the  possession  of  the  fugitive  crew  of  the  schooner 
Plattsburgh,  and  taken  from  them,  for  the  benefit  of  the  owner. 

Thus  far  the  testimony  of  Mr.  M’Kim,  as  entirely  unconnected 
with  that  of  the  other  witnesses. 

By  Capt.  De  la  Roche,  we  are  informed,  that  he  was  appoint¬ 
ed,  at  the  time  and  in  the  manner  stated  by  the  preceding  wit¬ 
ness,  to  go  in  pursuit  of  this  property  ;  that  he  arrived  in  Nor¬ 
way  in  the  month  of  April,  1817,  and  immediately  found  the  ves¬ 
sel  at  the  port  of  Christiansand,  in  the  custody  and  possession  of 
a  Mr.  Isaacson,  the  American  Consul  at  that  place  ;  that  some 
small  portions  of  merchandize,  together  with  a  few  empty  coffee 
bags,  were  the  only  articles  then  remaining  on  board.  He  testi¬ 
fies,  also,  that  the  vessel  was  sound  and  in  good  order  at  this  time, 
having,  indeed,  undergone,  apparently,  some  very  trifling  re¬ 
pairs,  but  to  have  sustained,  as  far  as  he  could  judge,  no  material 
injury  from  any  marine  disaster ;  that  he  brought  this  vessel  home 
to  the  port  of  Baltimore,  together  with  a  remittance  to  Mr. 
M’Kim,  of  several  thousand  dollars, from  Mr.  Isaacson,  purporting , 
according  to  the  statement  of  this  gentleman,  to  be  money,  taken 
from  the  reputed  crew  of  the  Plattsburgh,  or  resulting  from  the 
sale  of  certain  portions  of  the  cargo  on  board  at  the  time  of  her 
arrival  in  Norway. 

Such,  gentlemen,  is  the  testimony  of  these  two  highly  respec¬ 
table  and  impartial  witnesses  ;  and  you  will  perceive,  that  it  is 
altogether  unmixed  with  any  thing  which  they,  or  either  of  them, 
could  have  derived  from  mere  rumor  or  hearsay,  either  here  or 
in  Norway.  The  statements  they  have  given  you  (being  indeed 
the  only  kind  of  statement  they  could  ever  be  permitted  to  make, 
in  any  case,  civil  or  criminal,  according  to  the  familiar  rules  and 
principles  of  law)  comprise  such  facts  only,  as  were  within  their 
own  personal  observation  and  knowledge.  What  then,  gentle¬ 
men  of  the  jury,  is  the  inference  which  naturally  results,  may  I 
not  say  which  necessarily  results,  from  this  presentment  of  the 
subject  ?  In  my  own  view  of  the  circumstances,  the  conclusion  is 
unavoidable,  and  w’ould  so  be  considered  by  any  reasonable  man, 
not  acting  in  the  capacity  of  a  juror,  and  upon  the  tremulous  res¬ 
ponsibility  of  his  oath,  that  a  most  flagrant  act  of  piracy  had  been 
committed  on  board  this  vessel  ;  and  further,  that  several  foul 
murders  must,  necessarily,  have  been  the  precursors  of  the  piracy. 

We  have  it  from  the  owner  of  the  vessel,  that  she  was  almost 
new,  well  provided,  and  in  excellent  order,  at  the  time  of  her  de¬ 
parture  from  Baltimore  ;  that  her  cargo  was  valuable  ;  and,  mo*! 


59 


unfortunately,  as  this  may  probably  have  been  the  root  of  all  the 
evils  which  succeeded,  had  a  large  amount  of  specie  on  board. 
The  vessel  was  bound  to  Smyrna,  and  took  her  departure  from 
port  with  every  fair  prospect  of  reaching,  in  safety,  the  place  of 
her  destination.  Here  let  me  ask,  why  she  did  not  arrive  there  ? 
Through  what  fatality  has  it  happened,  that  instead  of  proceeding 
to  the  Mediterranean,  she  is  first  discovered  near  the  Categat ;  in 
place  of  delivering  her  valuable  merchandize  and  money  at  Smyr¬ 
na,  why  is  she  found  deserted  and  abandoned  at  an  obscure  port 
in  the  kingdom  of  Norway  ?  That  she  had  met  with  no  marine 
disaster,  nor  was  compelled  by  any  stress  of  weather  thus  widely 
to  diverge  from  her  proper  course,  is  most  perfectly  apparent 
from  the  whole  scope  of  this  evidence.  The  deviation  then  was 
voluntary,  unauthorized,  criminal !  It  must  have  been  no  other 
than  a  piratical  “  running  awayn  with  this  vessel,  by  some  per¬ 
son  or  persons  ;  and  whether  any  murders  were  or  were  not,  su- 
peYadded  to  this  piracy,  it  is  most  certain,  that  the  agents  in  the 
transaction,  whoever  they  may  have  been ,  were  guilty  of  a  high  and 
most  horrible  offence.  Who  then,  are  the  offenders  ?  The  com¬ 
pass  of  this  inquiry  is  extremely  narrow  and  limited  :  it  is  not  like 
the  case  of  some  murder  which  has  been  committed  on  land, 
where  we  are  obliged  to  proceed  in  the  midst  of  clouds  and  dark¬ 
ness,  and  to  look  over  the  wide  world,  in  pursuit  of  the  offender. 
If  any  crimes  have  been  committed,  it  is  to  the  vessel,  to  the  peo¬ 
ple  on  board  of  her,  consisting  of  precisely  seventeen  individuals, 
we  must  look,  in  order  to  detect  the  authors  of  the  mischief ;  for 
it  is  repugnant  to  every  circumstance  in  the  case,  that,  while  tra¬ 
versing  the  ocean,  she  was  overcome  by  assailing  thieves  from 
without,  and  by  them  taken,  and  so  suddenly  and  mysteriously 
abandoned,  with  most  of  her  valuable  cargo  on  board,  in  an  ob¬ 
scure  port  in  Norway. 

From  my  own  view  of  the  subject, it  results  then  very  naturally, 
almost  inevitably,  I  may  say,  either  that  the  three  officers,  Hack- 
ett,  Yeiser,  and  Baynard,  who  were  on  board  this  vessel,  at  her  de¬ 
parture  from  Baltimore ;  who  have  never  since  been  heard  of, 
and  are  not  now  supposed  to  be  existing  on  the  face  of  the  globe, 
were  principals  in  the  piracy  alluded  to,  or  that  they  were  destroy¬ 
ed,  and  the  whole  or  part  of  her  crew  were,  in  reality,  the  pi¬ 
rates  and  the  murderers.  It  is,  I  admit,  gentlemen,  within  the 
sphere  of  bare  possibility,  that  the  first  of  these  hypotheses  is  the 
true  one  ;  it  is,  indeed,  physically,  though  I  should  scarcely  admit 
it  to  be  morally  possible,  that  Captain  Hackett,  his  mate,  Yeiser, 
and  the  other  gentleman  I  have  named,  all  of  whom  were  resi¬ 
dents  in  Baltimore,  who  had  there,  their  families,  connexions, and 
home ;  who,  more  especially,  were  in  some  measure,  the  confi¬ 
dential  friends  of  the  respectable  owner  of  this  vessel, and  bound  to 
him,  at  any  rate,  by  every  tie  of  gratitude,  as  well  as  honor,  for 
the  faithful  performance  of  the  important  trust  reposed  in  them, 
may,  nevertheless,  all  at  once,  in  some  evil  hour,  without  any 


60 


competent  motive,  or  inducement,  indeed,  with  no  motive  at  ail, 
that  can  be  imagined,  have  concerted  the  base  project  of  betraying 
the  confidence  of  their  friend  and  employer,  and  thereby, of  commit¬ 
ting  an  offence,  whose  least  injurious  consequence  to  themselves, 
must  have  been, most  inevitably, perpetual  exile  from  their  country, 
their  families  and  friends.  It  is  possible,  that  these  three  men, 
whose  character  and  standing  in  society,  were  so  respectable  at 
the  time  of  their  departure  from  Baltimore,  may,  notwithstanding, 
(such  is  the  depravity  of  our  nature,)  in  less  than  one  short  month 
thereafter,  have  corrupted  the  morals  of  the  honest  and  harmless 
men,  who  were  subject  to  their  control,  on  board  this  vessel,  may 
have  prompted  them  to  co-operate  in  a  foul  scheme  of  piracy, and 
by  word  of  reward  for  their  services,  should  have  surrendered  to 
their  possession,  in  Norway, the  vessel,  and  the  money,  and  every 
thing  which  could  have  been  the  motive  or  object  of  all  this  com¬ 
plication  of  crime.  It  is  within  the  sphere  of  possibilty,  ^lso, 
proceeding  upon  the  unassisted  testimony  of  M’Kim  and  De  la 
Roche,  that  the  three  men  1  have  alluded  to,  instead  of  having 
been  murdered  on  the  fatal  night  which  has  been  spoken  of,  are 
yet  in  full  life  ;  that,  ashamed  of  their  excessive  folly  and  crimes, 
they  may  still  be  groping  in  some  obscure,  inscrutable  corner  of 
the  earth,  from  whence  their  voice  has  not  been,  nor  ever  will, 
again,  be  heard,  by  those  with  whom  they  were  once  acquainted 
and  connected.  All  this  1  admit,  gentlemen,  is  barely  possible  ; 
and  if  mere  possibilities  are  to  have  influence  against  the  evidence 
in  this  case,  it  is,  undoubtedly,  an  hypothesis  which  is  deserving  of 
consideration.  Permit  me, however, to  inquire, if  there  be  in  it  any 
thing  natural  or  probable  ?  From  the  testimony  of  M’Kim  and  De 
la  Roche.  I  feel  myself  warranted  in  saying,  that  the  vessel  in 
question,  together  with  all  the  cargo  and  all  the  money  on  board  of 
her  at  the  outset  of  this  voyage,  are  fairly,  and  very  satisfactori¬ 
ly,  traced  to  the  possession  of  the  prisoners  at  the  bar,  and  their 
comrades  of  the  crew,  after  her  arrival  at  the  port  of  Mandahl,  in 
Norway.  The  vessel,  most  certainly,  was  found  there  ;  and  that 
the  prisoners  were  there  also,  is  sufficiently  manifested  in  this  cause 
by  the  circumstance,  that  they  were  all  speedily  apprehended  in 
the  vicinity  of  that  place,  after  the  arrival  of  the  vessel.  Under 
these  circumstances,  I  submit  to  you,  gentlemen,  if  it  be  not  suffi¬ 
ciently  apparent,  upon  the  legal  principles  of  evidence,  that  the 
schooner  Plattsburgh,  with  her  cargo,  found  her  way  to  Norway 
through  the  voluntary  agency  of  her  crew,  and  that,  on  the 
other  hand,  notwithstanding  the  promptitude  and  facility  with 
which  information  of  every  sort,  and,  more  especially,  the  tidings 
of  any  marine  or  commercial  disaster  are,  at  this  day,  wafted  from 
one  extremity  to  the  other  of  the  commercial  world,  never  since 
has  there  been  received,  from  Norway  or  elsewhere,  a  single 
lisp  or  intimation  tending  to  shew  that  the  three  individuals,  who 
had  originally  the  charge  and  custody  of  this  very  valuable 
property,  may  yet  be  in  existence.  Upon  such  a  state  of  the 


61 


'evidence,  I  submit  to  you,  gentlemen,  if  it  be  not  suffi¬ 
ciently  apparent  that  this  vessel,  with  her  original  cargo 
and  specie  on  hoard,  must  have  found  her  way  into  Norway 
through  the  voluntary  agency  of  her  crew  ;  and  that,  Hackett, 
and  Yeiser,  and  Baynard  must,  by  some  means,  foul  or  /air,  have 
been  disposed  of  or  removed  from  on  hoard,  in  the  course  of  the 
voyage.  It  does  seem  to  me,  gentlemen,  that  this  inference  is  ir- 
resistable,  Consider  that  there  are,  at  this  moment, in  this  court¬ 
house,  and  now  before  your  eyes,  not  less  than  seven  individuals, 
more  than  a  moiety  of  the  crew  who  sailed  in  this  vessel  from  the 
port  of  Baltimore,  upon  this  disastrous  expedition  ;  and  who,  of 
course,  must  be  perfectly  well  acquainted  with  every  incident  and 
circumstance  of  the  voyage.  Upon  the  clearest  principles  of  law 
and  common  sense,  have  I  not,  then,  a  right  to  demand  of  these 
men,  and  of  the  prisoners  at  the  bar  in  particular,  •where  are  your 
officers?  Where  are  the  three  who  embarked  with  you,  whom 
you  engaged  to  serve  and  obey,  and  whose  absence  is  now  so  mys¬ 
terious  and  unintelligible?  You  are  found,  virtually  at  least,  in 
possession  of  this  vessel,  of  part  of  the  property  which  was  on 
board  of  her  at  your  shipment ;  she  was  bound  to  the  Mediter¬ 
ranean — by  what  disastrous  circumstance  has  it  happened,  that 
she  is  found,  and  in  your  possession,  at  a  place  so  wide  of  her  des¬ 
tination  ?  If  your  officers  and  your  supercargo  have,  by  any  ac¬ 
cident,  perished  on  the  voyage,  how  happens  it,  that  more  than 
two  years  should  have  elapsed,  and  yet  not  an  intimation  should 
be  known  to  have  proceeded  from  you,  respecting  such  a  casualty  ? 
It  is  true,  indeed,  gentlemen,  that  the  prisoners  now  standing  at 
the  bar,  are  no  longer  at  liberty  to  make  answer  to  these  ques¬ 
tions.  Their  own  mouths  are  now  closed ;  they  cannot  he  per¬ 
mitted  now  to  speak  but  by  the  mouths  of  their  witnesses.  It  is, 
however,  not  less  true,  that  abundant  time  and  opportunity  have 
been  afforded  them  to  make  the  necessary  explanations.  If,  by 
any  peril  of  the  sea,  they  had  been  driven, involuntarily,  from  their 
course ;  if,  more  especially,  so  singular  and  uncommon  a  series  of 
disasters  had  occurred  on  the  voyage,  as  the  death,  by  natural 
causes,  of  the  three  principal  personages  who  had  so  lately  the 
charge  of  this  vessel ;  how  happens  it  that  we  hear  not  a  word  of 
the  public  protests ,  of  the  customary  statements  and  declarations 
being  made  on  her  arrival  in  JN  orway,  by  way  of  proclaiming  and 
perpetuating  the  truth  of  events  of  so  rare  and  unusual  occur¬ 
rence  ?  How  happens  it,  that  these  unfortunate,  and  bewildered 
mariners,  having  been  driven  by  dire  necessity  and  distress,  upon 
the  coast  of  a  civilized  and  hospitable  people,  were  not  cherished 
and  protected,  instead  of  being  pursued  and  imprisoned,  as  fugi¬ 
tives  and  felons  ?  To  questions  like  these,  as  well  as  to  the  many 
others  of  like  import,  which  might  be  put,  and  which  I  have  a  right 
to  put  to  these  men,  the  answer  is  obvious  ;  they  were  found,  on 
their  arrival  in  Norway,  as  they  are  now  seen  here  at  the  bar, 
utterly  destitute  of  all  those  usual  means  of  explanation,  which, 
if  innocent,  would  there ,  as  well  as  here ,  /rave  been  most  unques¬ 
tionably  within  their  power. 


62 


I  feel,  gentlemen,  that  I  am  warranted  in  stating  to  yon,  and 
with  no  small  degree  of  confidence,  that,  from  the  views  I  have 
taken  of  this  evidence,  it  must  be  sufficiently  apparent  to  every 
reasonable  and  unprejudiced  mind, even  enough  so, I  think, to  justify  a 
juror  under  oath,  to  predicate  his  verdict  upon  the  fact,  that  neith¬ 
er  Hackett,  nor  Baynard,  nor  Yeiser,  were  on  board  the  vessel 
at  her  arrival  in  Norway;  for  it  is  utterly  incredible  ;  it  is  at  va¬ 
riance,  indeed,  with  every  thing  we  know  of  nature,  or  the  char¬ 
acter  of  man,  that  if  such  were  the  case,  not  a  syllable  should 
ever  have  been  heard  of  these  men,  within  the  compass  of  the 
almost  three  years  which  have  intervened,  either  in  that  country 
or  this. 

Does  it  not, then, result  as  a  necessary  conclusion  from  the  prem¬ 
ises,  that  the  unfortunate  men  alluded  to,  were  removed  from  on 
board  their  vessel  by  foul  and  unnatural  means  ?  That  a  flagrant 
piracy,  at  least,  which  stands  next  to  murder  on  our  catalogue  of 
crimes,  was  committed ;  and  that  some,  or  all  of  the  ship’s  crew, 
must  have  been  concerned  in  its  perpetration  ?  To  my  mind, 
gentlemen,  the  inference  is  irresistable.  Considering,  moreover, 
the  nature  of  this  offence,  the  place  where  it  occurred,  and  the 
physical  force  which  must  have  been  employed  in  its  execution, 
we  have  but  little  less  ground  for  the  inference,  that  a  majority, 
if  not  the  whole  of  this  crew,  must  have  been  the  parties  con¬ 
cerned.  It  would  be  unnatural,  it  would  be  preposterous  to  sup¬ 
pose,  that  even  the  fearless  Stromer,  or  the  active  and  sanguinary 
Williams,  would  have  had  the  rashness  to  attempt,  single  and  alone, 
an  open  and  murderous  assault  upon  all  the  officers  of  the  vessel. 
Bold  and  intrepid  as  they  are,  they  would  not  have  adventured  on 
so  hopeless,  so  fearful  an  enterprise  on  the  ocean,  without  a  pre¬ 
vious  knowledge,  and  assurance  of  the  general  co-operation  of 
their  comrades. 

All  this,  1  admit,  however,  gentlemen,  is  but  mere  inference 
and  presumption ;  and  that  it  differs  in  denomination,  though  not, 

1  think,  in  force,  from  that  positive  evidence ,  which  the  learned 
counsel  for  the  prisoners,  have  considered  to  be  so  essential  to 
produce  a  conviction.  On  the  whole,  gentlemen,  I  do  contend, 
that  the  testimony  of  the  two  witnesses,  M’Kim  and  De  la  Roche, 
connected  as  it  is,  with  the  intrinsic  evidence  which  is  to  be  found 
in  every  part  of  the  case,  is  abundantly  sufficient,  in  law,  to  shift 
the  burden  of  proof  upon  the  prisoners,  and  to  authorise  my 
calling  on  them,  peremptorily  and  loudly,  for  satisfactory  expla¬ 
nation  of  every  thing  in  their  case,  which  may  now  seem  doubtful 
or  mysterious.  A  piracy,  if  not  a  murder,  and  more  than  one 
murder,  is  brought  home  to  their  very  door;  and  it  remains  for 
them  to  show  that  other  wretches,  not  they,  were  the  perpetrators 
of  the  deed. 

Thus  far,  gentlemen,  my  observations  have  been  directed  to 
the  mere  circumstantial  evidence  fvhich  exists  in  this  cause.  By 
way  of  demonstrating  to  you,  that  the  inferences  1  have  deduced 


03 


from  it,  are  correct  and  irrefragable,  I  will  now  proceed  to  show 
you,  by  that  direct  and  positive  proof,  which  has  been  so  frequently 
demanded  by  the  counsel  for  the  prisoners,  in  the  course  of  their 
argument,  the  time  and  place,  and  every  circumstance  of  the 
murder,  which  is  described  in  this  indictment. 

With  this  view,  gentlemen,  I  must  call  your  particular  attention 
to  the  testimony  which  was  delivered  to  you  by  Onion  and  Sam- 
berson. 

First,  however,  it  may  be  useful,  in  order  that  1  may  follow  the 
learned  counsel  for  the  prisoners,  in  the  course  of  their  observa¬ 
tions,  that  1  should  consider,  for  a  few  moments,  the  question  of 
credibility ,  and  even  competency  which  has  been  so  much  agitated 
in  relation  to  these  witnesses. 

It  has  been  contended,  and  with  a  degree  of  emphasis  which 
may  have  made  some  impression  upon  your  minds,  that  if  any 
crime  were  committed,  the  witnesses  themselves  must  have 
been  accomplices  in  its  perpetration ;  that  being  accomplices ,  they 
have  kept  back  the  confession  of  their  guilt ;  and  hence,  that  the 
entire  mass  of  their  evidence  must  be  rejected.  Gentlemen,  it  is 
extremely  easy  to  advance,  but  it  would  be  difficult  indeed,  to 
substantiate,  in  point  of  fact,  by  the  slightest  color  of  evidence 
which  has  appeared  in  the  cause,  the  truth  of  this  position. 

With  regard  to  Onion,  it  has  been  proved  to  demonstration,  not 
by  his  own  single  testimony,  but  by  the  evidence  also  of  Samber- 
son,  and  by  every  circumstance  in  the  case,  that  in  place  of  being 
confederate,  he  was  marked  out  by  the  murderers  to  be  one  of 
their  victims.  He  was  an  officer  of  the  vessel,  and  it  is  evident 
that  at  least  every  officer  on  board,  was  included  in  the  death 
roll  of  these  murderers !  It  is  not  from  the  declaration  of  Onion 
alone,  that  we  derive  the  proof  of  the  deadly  assault  that  was 
made  upon  him,  or  the  wounds  he  received.  It  is  not  from  his 
Single  statement,  that  we  are  informed  of  the  almost  miraculous 
manner  of  his  escape,  the  singular  place  of  his  concealment,  his 
supplication  for  mercy,  and  the  terms  upon  which  the  prayer  of 
the  petition  was,  at  last,  granted  by  these  assassins.  It  is  not 
upon  the  strength  of  his  testimony  alone,  we  are  to  believe,  that 
while  yet  trembling  in  his  hiding  place,  with  the  most  fearful  ap¬ 
prehensions  of  his  fate,  one  of  the  prisoners  at  the  bar,  was 
standing  sentinel,  with  his  musket,  by  way  of  guarding  every 
avenue  against  escape ;  nor  that  the  same  inhuman  monster  was 
heard  to  call  on  his  comrades  “  for  the  halliard  to  rouse  the 
bugger”  from  his  position.  Permit  me  to  remind  you,  gentlemen, 
that  all  the  circumstances  I  have  enumerated,  with  many  more 
which  I  might  mention,  of  like  signification,  although  they  were 
stated  by  Onion,  were  also  stated  by  Samberson,  whose  innoeency 
and  credibility,  as  I  shall  presently  attempt  to  convince  you,  is 
absolutely  beyond  the  reach  of  all  suspicion.  It  is  also  in  evi¬ 
dence,  from  the  testimony  of  both  the  witnesses,  that  it  was  the 
watch  of  Onion  below,  and  be  was  sleeping  in  his  birth,  when  the 


64 


false  alarm  was  given  by  Williams,  to  serve  as  a  signal  for  com¬ 
mencing  upon  those  scenes  of  blood  and  slaughter,  which  so  spee¬ 
dily  ensued. 

Are  there  then,  gentlemen,  any,  and  what  other  circumstances 
in  evidence  before  you,  that  should  lead  you  even  to  suspect  this 
man,  of  confederacy  in  the  murders  ?  It  is  stated  to  you,  and  in¬ 
deed,  the  fact  is  openly  avowed  by  himself,  that  he  received,  not 
however  without  some  degree  of  hesitancy,  his  full  share  of  the 
booty  which  was  divided  among  the  crew ;  that  in  obedience  to 
the  suggestion  of  Stromer  and  of  Williams,  who  were  now  his 
superiors,  he  was  compelled  to  act  in  his  former  capacity  of 
second  mate,  under  the  newly  organized  government  which  suc¬ 
ceeded  the  insurrection  ;  that  he  continued  to  assist,  as  heretofore, 
in  the  navigation  of  the  vessel ;  that  he  altered  the  papers,  and 
acted  with  the  others  in  attempting  to  deceive  the  officer  by 
whom  she  was  first  boarded,  at  the  first  moment  of  her  arrival  at 
the  obscure  port  of  Norway,  With  regard  to  the  circumstances 
of  the  voyage,  he  has  also  confessed  to  you  without  reserve.  But 
all  this,  to  take  the  whole  of  his  confession ,  (if  so  it  may  be  deno¬ 
minated,)  together,  appears,  most  obviously,  to  have  been  but  in 
compliance  with  the  dictation  of  those  who  had  spared  his  life,  on 
condition  of  his  secrecy  and  obedience.  What  then,  gentlemen, 
is  there  in  all  this,  which  can  authorize  you  to  infer,  nay  even  to 
suspect,  that  he  may  have  been  confederate  with  the  cut  throats  ? 
Had  all  this  apparent  subserviency  to  their  purposes  been  volun¬ 
tary,  even  after  the  fatal  deeds  were  consummated  I  will  have 
the  frankness  to  admit,  that  it  would  have  affected,  very  deeply, 
his  credibility,  on  the  present  occasion.  As  being  accessary  after 
the  fact ,  his  offence,  in  such  case,  would  indeed  have  amounted 
to  no  more,  by  the  laws  of  this  land,  than  a  mere  misdemeanor ; 
yet  I  will  admit  that  even  a  connexion  like  this,  with  the  princi¬ 
pal  offenders,  in  relation  to  crimes  of  such  atrocity,  might  very 
properly  be  considered  as  the  evidence  of  such  degradation,  both 
of  feeling  and  principle,  as  to  render  him,  in  any  case,  unworthy 
of  your  confidence. 

But,  gentlemen,  I  beg  you  to  recollect  that  all  these  injurious 
suppositions  with  regard  to  the  standing  of  this  witness,  are  mere¬ 
ly  gratuitous,  and  scarcely  to  be  indulged,  even  in  the  way  of  hy¬ 
pothesis.  He  tells  you,  gentlemen,  and  from  every  thing  which 
appears  in  the  history  of  this  case,  l  submit  to  you  if  the  declara¬ 
tion  be  not,  in  every  respect,  probable  and  consistent  with  human 
nature,  that  from  the  bloody  night  of  the  23d  of  July,  until  the 
moment  of  his  imprisonment  at  Copenhagen,  and  his  subsequent 
deliverance  from  the  fends  who  had  surrounded  him,  the  whole 
course  of  his  conduct  had  been  influenced  by  the  terror  of  their 
displeasure.  But  it  is  objected,  that  he  participated  in  the  plun¬ 
der.  Berrnit  me  to.  inquire,  w  hich  of  you,  gentlemen,  under  the 
circumstances  that  have  been  described,  would  have  dared  to  do 
otherwise  ?  From  the  testimony  of  the  witness,  it  would,  how- 


65 


ever  seem,  that  he  did  not  omit  to  express  his  scruples  on  the  oc¬ 
casion  alluded  to  ;  and  even  had  the  indiscretion  to  propose,  as  a 
testimony  of  his  thankfulness  for  the  life  that  had  been  spared  him, 
to  surrender  his  portion  of  the  booty,  for  the  benefit  of  others, 
whose  crimes  had  acquired  it,  and  who,  therefore,  had  higher 
claims  to  its  enjoyment. 

Permit  me  to  ask  again,  which  of  you,  gentlemen,  with  the 
bloody  Stromer  and  the  eagle-eyed  Williams  perpetually  before 
your  eyes,  and  standing  as  the  inquisitors  of  your  very  thoughts  as 
well  as  actions  ;  subject  as  a  slave  to  their  control,  and  upon  the 
wide  and  trackless  ocean,  would  have  had  the  fortitude,  may  J 
not  say  the  rashness,  to  betray  such  misgivings  ?  For  my  own 
part,  I  am  not  ashamed  to  avow,  in  the  presence  of  this  honora¬ 
ble  court,  in  your  presence,  and  before  the  multitude  who  hear 
me,  that  on  the  occasion  alluded  to,  and  in  the  midst  of  all  the 
terrors  of  such  a  scene,  as  has  been  described,  I  should  not  have 
had  the  courage  to  manifest  the  slightest  symptom  of  repugnancy. 
I  should,  seemingly,  have  gone  all  lengths  with  these  blood 
hounds  ;  I  would  have  protested , again  and  again, my  allegiance  to 
their  cause, and  not  until  I  found  myself  completely  beyond  the  reach 
of  their  daggers, should  I  have  had  the  heart  to  proclaim  their  male- 
factions.  With  the  exception  of  that  single  jnstauce  of  indiscre¬ 
tion,  that  has  been  alluded  to,  which  serves  but  to  shew  that  the 
witness  had  as  much  honesty  of  intention,  and  a  little  more  forti¬ 
tude  than  most  men  would  have  manifested  on  a  simdar  occasion, 
he  appears  to  have  acted  throughout,  on  the  principles  I  have 
spoken  of,  on  the  principles,  in  fact,  which  are  implanted  in  our 
nature,  and  which  no  man  could  disregard,  who  is  concerned  for 
the  preservation  of  his  own  safety  and  existence.  The  same  ob¬ 
servations  are  applicable  to  the  conduct  of  this  man,  after  his  ar¬ 
rival  in  Norway,  and  when,  (judgiug  from  what  would  have  been 
his  condition,  under  similar  circumstances,  in  a  country  like  this,) 
it  may  possibly  be  supposed,  that  he  could  no  longer  have 
been  actuated,  or  restrained,  by  the  influence  of  fear.  On  this 
head,  gentlemen,  it  is  of  some  consequence,  that  you  should  again 
call  to  mind,  the  explanation  of  this  witness.  The  arrival  of  the 
vessel  was  at  an  out  port,  but  very  thinly  inhabited.  He  was  a 
stranger  to  its  population,  its  language,  its  laws,  and  its  govern¬ 
ment.  He  was  once  only  on  shore,  and  then  he  was  accompa¬ 
nied, and  every  footstep  was  traced, by  the  same  ferocious  assassin, 
who  had  spared  his  life,  on  the  express  condition  of  secrecy  and 
fidelity.  Here  then,  gentlemen,  it  would  have  been  evidence, 
rather  of  madness  than  honesty,  had  he  proceeded,  even  if  he 
had  the  physical  power  of  doing  it,  (which  is  not  a  little  question¬ 
able)  to  the  disclosure  of  his  secret.  He  might,  indeed,  have 
made  his  declaration,  with  less  dread  of  the  consequences,  during 
his  fortnight’s  residence  in  the  city  of  Copenhagen.  Even  here, 
however,  he  was  a  stranger  to  the  government  and  the  laws. 
Still  he  was  accompanied,  and,  without  doubt,  carefully  overlook- 
9 


66 


ed,  by  two  at  least,  of  his  most  savage  and  vindictive  associates. 
If  he  were  here,  beyond  the  reach  of  immediate  assassination, 
may  it  not  also  be  said,  that  he  had  yet  reasonable  ground  of  ap¬ 
prehension,  that  lie  might  suffer  from  conspiracy  and  contrivance  ? 
Had  he  entered  his  complaint  before  the  magistrate,  the  truth  of 
his  statement  might,  and  perhaps  must  have  been  left  to  depend 
on  the  faith  of  his  own  uncorroborated  testimony.  A  plurality  of 
voices  would  have  been  against  him,  and  it  was  by  no  means  im¬ 
probable,  indeed  the  subsequent  proceedings  at  Copenhagen, 
have  shewn  the  correctness  of  the  supposition,  that  the  accusation 
he  should  make  against  others,  would  instantly  be  retorted,  and, 
perhaps,  fastened  upon  himself.  Under  all  these  perplexities,  I 
submit  to  3-011,  gentlemen,  if  the  resolution  which  this  witness  as¬ 
sures  you  he  had  formed,  of  reserving  the  promulgation  of  his 
secret,  until  his  return  to  America,  is  a  circumstance  in  any  degree 
unnatural,  or  inconsistent  with  the  purest  intentions?  It  may  not, 
indeed,  have  heen  the  course  which  a  man  of  much  more  intel¬ 
ligence,  and  in  a  higher  grade  of  life,  would  have  pursued  on  the 
occasion ;  but  does  it  necessarily  imply,  in  this  case ,  a  disposition 
to  favor  the  commission  of  crime,  or  to  screen  the  perpetrator 
from  detection  ?  In  my  own  view  of  the  subject,  the  situation  of 
this  witness,  even  when  certain  protection  would,  as  we  know , 
have  been  afforded  him  in  the  great  capital  of  Denmark,  was, 
nevertheless,  for  the  reasons  l  have  stated,  in  no  small  degree, 
critical  and  embarrassing  ;  this  also  entitles  him  to  the  most  favor¬ 
able  interpretations  of  his  conduct. 

It  is,  moreover,  a  circumstance,  much  in  favor  of  this  witness, 
that  upon  his  first  examination,  before  the  magistracy  of  Den¬ 
mark,  his  disclosures  were  voluntary,  full,  and  without  the  least 
appearance,  (as  far  as  we  are  informed)  of  a  disposition  to  con¬ 
cealment  ;  and  still,  more  especially,  that  all  this  occurred,  when 
he  had  reason  to  suppose  that  he  was  the  first  to  disclose  the  hor¬ 
rible  scenes  of  which  he  had  been  a  witness.  Where,  then,  gen¬ 
tlemen,  is  the  ground  of  that  position  which  has  been  so  confident¬ 
ly  assumed  by  the  counsel  for  the  prisoners,  that  the  principal 
witness  to  convict  them,  is  an  accomplice  in  their  guilt  ?  With  re¬ 
gard  to  the  remaining  witness,  Samberson,  whose  testimony  you 
have  heard,  little  has  been  urged,  and  most  surely,  nothing  has 
been  proved,  that  can  lead  you  to  suspect,  that  he,  also,  could 
have  been  confederate  with  these  pirates  and  murderers !  That 
he  was  onboard  the  vessel,  and  bv  construction,  therefore,  pres¬ 
ent.  at  the  commission  of  the  crimes;  that  he  was  permitted  to 
live,  and  (most  fortunately  for  the  cause  of  public  justice)  to  re¬ 
tain  the  power  of  telling  his  artless  story  before  you,  on  the  pres¬ 
ent  occasion,  when  his  life  was  once  at  the  mercy  of  these  wretch¬ 
es,  and  was  spared,  seem  to  be  the  only  circumstances  to  counte¬ 
nance  the  supposition,  that  he  may,  possibly,  have  been  accessa¬ 
ry  to  their  crimes.  But,  gentlemen,  how  happens  it  that  this 
man  yet  lives;  that  his  body  also  was  not  mingled  with  others 


67 


which  were  committed  to  the  waves  ?  With  reference  to  all  tln^ 
evidence  in  the  case,  the  answer  to  this  question  is  plain  and  ob¬ 
vious.  He  was  viewed  on  board  the  vessel,  as  you  must  have  re¬ 
garded  him  here,  a  humble,  harmless,  inoffensive  man.  I  must 
not,  however,  pay  such  unmerited  compliment  to  the  heart  of  these 
monsters,  as  to  admit  for  a  moment,  even  in  the  way  of  supposi¬ 
tion,  that  it  could  have  been  for  their  regard  to  any  qualities  like 
these,  that  his  lips  also,  were  not  sealed  in  death  on  the  fatal 
night  Be  assured,  gentlemen,  it  was  not  for  his  innocence,  nor 
for  his  harmlessness,  but  for  his  utility  and  future  services,  that  the 
life  of  this  man  was  neither  threatened  nor  assailed.  He  was,  it 
seems,  the  cabin  steward,  a  mere  servant  to  the  officers,  on  board 
thisyessel.  His  birth  and  place  of  residence  was  the  cabin  ;  and 
the  attendance  of  such  a  man  would  be  useful,  and  almost  indispen¬ 
sable  to  the  murderers,  who  were,  now,  in  stately  authority  over 
the  ship.  He  belonged  to  no  watch,  and  had  no  intercourse  with 
the  mariners,  either  in  relation  to  their  labors  or  their  pastimes. 
On  the  other  hand,  in  regard  to  the  officers  of  the  ship,  he  was  “in 
double  trust,”  as  their  servant  and  their  friend,  “  who  ’ gainst  their 
murderers  would  have  shut  the  door,  not  be(ir  the  knife  himself.  ”  He 
was  precisely  where  he  should  have  been,  in  his  birth,  and  asleep, 
(if  you  believe  the  testimony  of  Onion)  at  the  dread  hour  of  mid¬ 
night,  when  the  scene  of  foul  murder  was  commenced. 

Gentlemen,  with  circumstances  like  these  before  us,  permit  me 
to  inquire,  would  it  not  be  an  outrage  upon  the  very  front  of  truth, 
were  we  to  believe,  or  even  to  imagine,  that  this  humble  man  may 
have  concurred  in  thought,  or  in  deed,  with  the  views  of  these  as¬ 
sassins  ?  The  idea  is  monstrous  and  cannot  be  endured. 

With  respect  to  this  witness  also,  it  has  been  urged  upon  you, 
that  his  acceptance  of  a  share  in  the  common  plunder  of  the  ves¬ 
sel,  is  evidence  at  least,  of  his  disposition  to  sanction  and  conceal 
the  crimes  by  which  it  was  acquired.  On  this  head,  gentlemen,  I 
have  nothing  to  add  to  the  explanations  which  have  already  been 
givqn  you  in  my  answer  to  ;a  similar  suggestion,  (I  will  nof  call  it 
argument)  which  was  pressed  against  Onion.  I  must  pray  you, 
however,  to  remember,  that  if  Onion,  a  man,  evidently  of  some 
strength  and  intelligence,  be  excusable,  on  the  ground  of  terror 
and  duress,  how  much  more  forcible  is  the  apology  for  the  shiver¬ 
ing,  powerless  mortal,  who  was  the  mere  slave  of  the  monsters. 

It  is,  moreover,  a  circumstance  which  must  not  escape  notice, 
that  the  imputation  of  any  improper  concealment  of  the  crimes, 
is  entirely  inapplicable  to  this  case.  From  the  whole  course  of 
the  evidence,  it  is  clear,  beyond  doubt,  that  the  first  develope- 
ment  of  the  bloody  scenes  on  board  the  Plattsburgh,  proceeded 
from  him,  and  that  there  never  was  a  moment  that  the  disclosure 
was  kept  back,  when  it  could  have  been  made,  but  at  the  peril 
of  his  life. 

What  then,  gentlemen,  is  the  ground,  upon  which  both  or  eith¬ 
er  of  these  witnesses,  can  fairly  be  treated  in  this  cause,  as  ac~ 


V> 


68 


complices  or  accessaries,  before  or  after  the  murders  were  perpe¬ 
trated  ?  I  answer  with  confidence,  there  is  not  a  pretext,  founded 
upon  the  evidence,  for  doing  them  such  injustice. 

But,  gentlemen,  if,  in  opposition  to  every  presumption  in  the 
case,  I  were  to  admit  in  its  utmost  latitude,  the  position  which  has 
been  assumed,  that  both  of  these  witnesses  were,  in  truth,  leagued 
in  voluntary  confederacy  with  the  murderers,  so  far  only  as  to 
secure  the  booty,  and  to  screen  them  from  detection  ;  still  1  should 
have  authority  to  say,  and  to  predicate  the  assertion,  upon  the 
clearest  principles  of  the  law,  that  the  circumstance  could  not, 
essentially  impair,  much  less  destroy,  as  has  been  contended,  the 
credibility  of  their  testimony.  If  they  are  accomplices,  they  are, 
nevertheless,  accomplices  who  are  testifying,  in  this  court ,  upou 
very  different  terms  and  conditions ,  from  those  which  are  required 
by  that  musty  and  exploded  doctrine  of  approvement,  which  has 
been  so  largely  explained  to  you,  from  the  books,  by  the  gentle¬ 
men  on  the  other  side.  It  is  surely,  not  in  this  case,  as  in  the  case 
of  the  approver,  that  the  remuneration  of  his  testimony,  is  the 
forgiveness  or  remission  of  his  own  transgressions  ;  and,  that  his 
own  life  may  be  spared,  if  by  any  means,  foul  or  fair,  by  his  truths 
or  his  perjuries,  he  can  make  sure  of  an  equal  victim,  by  way  of 
feeding  and  appeasing  the  vengeance  of  the  law.  Gentlemen,  we 
have  much  reason  to  be  thankful,  that  this  vile  and  most  mischiev¬ 
ous  course  of  procedure  ;  this  barbarous  remnant  of  antiquity,  was 
long  since  dismissed  from  the  code  of  the  nation  which  engender¬ 
ed  it ;  and  still  more,  that  it  never  did,  and  never  will,  find  a  place 
in  our  own. 

To  you,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  who  are  men  of  information  and 
intelligence,  it  may  be  superlluous  to  remark,  that  there  is  no 
branch  of  our  government,  however  elevated  in  power,  which  has 
the  prerogative  to  make  any  previous  stipulation  with  a  witness  ; 
to  give  any  assurance  of  pardon  or  indulgence,  by  way  of  consider¬ 
ation  for  his  testimony  ;  of  course,  no  such  assurance  can  have 
been  hdlden  out!  to  the  witnesses,  on  the  present  occasion.  It  is, 
therefore,  most  certain,  and  I  have  authority  for  saying,  that  they 
have,  themselves,  perfect  knowledge  of  this  fact,  that  their  fate  is 
as  entirely  unconnected  with  the  presefit  trial,  or  its  results,  as  is 
yours  or  mine,  or  anj'  other  individual's  in  this  court  house.  What 
then,  gentlemen,  is  the  predicament  of  these  witnesses  ?  If  they 
are  accomplices,  it  is,  nevertheless,  clearly  the  law  of  this  land, 
that  they  are  still  competent  to  give  testimony.  There  is,  indeed, 
a  sentiment,  which  has  frequently  been  expressed  by  judges,  in 
trials  of  this  nature,  that  it  would  be  “  unsafe  to  convict  the  accu¬ 
sed  upon  the  uncorroborated  testimony  of  a  single  accomplice.” 
I  admit,  without  hesitance,  the  soundness  of  this  principle,  and 
am  entirely  content,  that  it  should  prevail,  and  have  its  full  force 
and  effect  in  application  to  the  cause  now  on  trial.  But  it  must  be 
remembered,  that  this  is  not  a  case  of  a  single  accomplice  ;  much 
less  is  it  a  case,  wherein  the  testimony  of  any  single  -witness  is 
without  corroboration. 


69 


Touching  this  subject  of  accomplices,  there  is  yet  another  posi¬ 
tion  which  has  been  advanced  by  the  counsel  for  the  prisoners,  to 
which  also,  I  will  yield  my  entire  approbation  ;  and  would  have 
done  so,  indeed,  if  the  gentleman  had  even  omitted  to  remind  me 
of  a  few  observations,  in  relation  to  this  subject,  which  I  had  the 
honor  to  submit,  at  an  early  period  of  my  life,  to  another  jury,  on 
an  occasion,  similar  to  the  present.  It  is  a  position,  which  I  agree 
to  be  correct,  and  which  appears  to  be  perfectly  well  founded 
in  reason  and  common  sense,  that  when  a  witness,  in  the  course 
of  his  examination,  shall  have  disavowed  all  participation  in  the 
guilt  of  a  principal  offender,  and  shall  afterwards  be  proved,  by 
other  evidence  than  his  own,  to  have  been,  in  reality,  an  accom¬ 
plice  in  the  crime,  the  entire  mass  of  the  testimony,  thus  mixed, 
and  contaminated  with  a  falsehood,  ought,  unquestionably,  to  be 
rejected. 

But,  gentleman,  let  us  consider,  for  a  moment,  if  it  be  possible 
that  the  credibility  of  Onion  or  Samberson  can  suffer  deterioration 
from  the  application  of  this  principle.  With  reference  to  every 
known  fact  and  circumstance  in  this  case,  I  would  ask,  if  there  be 
the  slightest  ground  for  suspicion  that  these  men  were  more  deep¬ 
ly  or  intimately  connected  with  the  murderers,  than  they  were 
willing,  frankly  and  openly  to  avow  from  the  stand.  Were  they, 
or  either  of  them,  voluntary  agents  in  the  horrible  scenes  of  the 
22d  July  ?  In  a  former  part  of  my  argument,  I  have  already  at¬ 
tempted  to  shew  you,  and  I  flatter  myself  I  must  have  done  so, 
effectually,  that  this  is  not  only  improbable,  but  scarcely  within 
the  sphere  of  moral  possibility. 

What,  then,  is  the  full  amount  of  their  offending  ?  They  were, 
in  some  measure,  the  partakers  of  the  spoil.  This  they  have 
avowed,  confessed  if  you  please,  and  at  the  same  time  have  ex¬ 
plained  to  you  the  motives,  by  which  they  were  actuated.  It  is 
always  to  be  remembered,  moreover,  as  incontestible  proof  of 
the  fullness  of  their  declarations,  that  the  only  evidence  of  this 
last  mentioned  circumstance  has  been  derived,  and  could  alone 
have  been  derived  from  the  voluntary  confessions  of  these  wit¬ 
nesses. 

Admit,  therefore,  for  the  sake  of  the  arguments,  that  both  these 
witnesses  have,  in  reality,  appeared  before  you  on  the  footing  of 
accomplices  ;  that  such  is  the  natural  and  necessary  conclusion, 
resulting  from  their  statements.;  yet  it  must  never  be  forgotten, 
that  it  is  from  their  own  free ,  unsolicited ,  voluntary  declarations, 
that  you  have  derived,  or  ever  could  have  derived,  this  knowl¬ 
edge  of  their  guilt.  What  then,  gentlemen,  in  a  legal  or  moral 
point  of  view,  is  the  predicament  of  these  witnesses,  on  the  score 
of  credibility  ?  In  the  very  fullness  of  their  heart,  they  have  con¬ 
fessed  to  you  every  fact  and  circumstance,  which  was  necessary 
to  unfold  to  you  the  whole  extent  of  their  criminality.  Gentle¬ 
men,  I  do  contend,  in  behalf  of  these  men,  that,  in  the  sight  of 
Heaven,  they  are  by  that  confession,  and  by  the  contrition  of 


70 


which  it  is  the  evidence,  completely  re-established  in  all  the  or¬ 
iginal  purity  and  innocence  of  their  character.  We  have  it,  from 
much  higher  authority  than  the  mere  speculations  of  frail  and  fal¬ 
lible  man,  that  the  confessing  and  repentant  transgressor,  stands 
at  least  upon  a  level,  in  point  of  moral  excellence,  with  him  who 
hath  not  offended.  The  very  thief  on  the  cross  was  forgiven : 
and  from  the  word  of  truth  itself,  it  is  delivered  to  us,  that  “joy 
shall  be  in  Heaven  over  one  sinner  that  repenteth,  more  than 
over  ninety  and  nine  just  persons  who  need  no  repentance.” 

If  then,  gentlemen,  you  are  satisfied,  and  it  appears  to  me  im¬ 
possible  that  you  should  entertain  a  doubt  of  this  fact,  that  Onion 
and  Samberson  have  fully  and  honestly  stated  to  you,  the  whole 
extent  of  their  connexion  with  the  prisoners,  after  the  tragical 
scenes  on  board  the  vessel  were  closed,  I  repeat,  with  confidence, 
that  there  is  nothing  in  the  case  to  impeach  their  credibility,  or 
to  justify  a  suspicion,  as  to  the  truth  of  other  parts  of  their  state¬ 
ment. 

But,  gentlemen,  the  counsel  for  the  prisoners  have  slightly 
touched  upon  some  other  grounds  against  the  credibility  of  these 
witnesses,  which  I  will  barely  notice,  but  will  not  consume  the 
time  in  commenting  upon  minutely.  Not  only  the  matter  of  their 
testimony,  but  the  very  manner  of  delivering  it,  has  been  the 
theme  of  some  comment  and  objection.  With  regard  to  both,  it 
is  sufficient  that  I  appeal  to  vour  recollections,  in  reference  to  the 
mere  question  of  their  veracity.  It  lias  however  been  objected, 
that  several  discrepancies  and  contradictions  have  appeared 
from  a  comparison  of  these  two  witnesses ;  it  is  unnecessary  for 
me  to  advert  to  the  particular  instances  that  have  been  mentioned. 
"W  ith  respect  to  them  all,  it  is  sufficient  to  remark,  that  they  re¬ 
late,  without  an  exception,  to  some  trifling,  immaterial  circum¬ 
stance  of  the  cause ;  that  they  are  such  as  are  always  to  be  ex¬ 
pected  iu  the  course  of  human  testimonju  In  fine,  that  they  are 
such  as  only  serve  to  shew  that  there  can  have  been  no  concert 
or  combination  between  the  narrators  ;  and,  concurring  as  they  do, 
most  perfectly, in  their  respective  statements  of  the  principal  facts, 
the  circumstances  alluded  to,  serve  to  shew', that  they  must, necessa¬ 
rily,  have  been  both  guided  in  their  course  by  the  light  of  truth. 
It  is  furthermore  to  be  remembered,  that  since  the  first  appre¬ 
hension  of  these  two  witnesses,  in  Denmark,  nearly  three  years 
ago,  they  have  seldom,  perhaps  never,  had  an  opportunity  of  con¬ 
versing  together.  Here,  also,  they  have  been  confined  in  sepa¬ 
rate  apartments;  they  have  been  examined  and  rigorously  cross 
questioned,  here,  in  this  court,  separately,  and  not  in  the  pres¬ 
ence  ot  each  other.  I  appeal  to  you,  gentlemen,  under  all  these 
circumstances,  if  any  li tile  variances  which  may  have  appeared 
in  their  statements,  ought  rather  to  go  to  their  discredit,  than  to 
be  received  as  affording  additional  confirmation  of  their  truth  and 
veracity  ? 


71 


What,  then,  gentlemen,  if  you  have  confidence  in  the  truth  of 
these  witnesses,  is  the  substance  and  effect  of  their  testimony  ? 
What  is  it,  indeed,  but  the  most  complete  and  perfect  confirma¬ 
tion  of  all  those  presumptions  which  had  already  arisen  in  this 
cause,  from  the  statements  of  M’Kim  and  De  la  Roche,  upon 
which  I  have  heretofore  had  occasion  to  comment  so  largely  ? 

You  are,  however,  now  relieved  from  the  necessity  of  resting 
solely  upon  presumption ;  the  evidence  is  now  direct  and  positive, 
that  Thomas  Baynard,  the  person  mentioned  in  this  indictment, 
was  most  basely  murdered,  at  the  time  and  in  the  manner  therein 
alleged ;  and  secondly,  that  one  and  all  of  the  prisoners,  were 
most  unquestionably  concerned  in  the  perpetration  of  this  foul  and 
most  nefarious  deed.  It  is  my  business  to  establish,  to  your  entire 
satisfaction,  by  force  of  all  the  evidence  which  is  before  you,  the 
truth  of  these  propositions.  First,  then,  gentlemen,  is  it  true  that 
Thomas  Baynard,  the  person  alluded  to,  is  actually  dead ;  for  even 
this  point,  which  in  its  order,  stands  at  the  very  threshhoid  of  this 
cause,  is  deemed  by  the  counsel  for  the  prisoners,  as  being  not 
entirely  exempt  from  its  difficulties  and  its  doubts.  What,  then, 
is  the  evidence,  in  relation  to  this  subject  ?  With  regard  to  that 
portion  of  the  proof  which  is  founded  on  the  presumptions  here¬ 
tofore  alluded  to,  it  cannot  be  necessary  for  me  again  to  remark. 
Without  the  aid  of  inference  or  presumption,  the  fact  is  now  es¬ 
tablished,  that  the  body  of  this  supposed  victim  was  seen  upon 
the  deck  of  the  schooner  Plattsburgh,  breathless,  and  to  all  ap¬ 
pearance  lifeless,  on  the  night  of  that  day  which  is  mentioned  in 
the  indictment.  That  while  lying  in  this  situation,  it  was  taken 
from  the  deck  by  two  of  the  prisoners  at  the  bar,  Williams  and 
Rog,  and  thrown  into  the  sea.  He  was  never  afterwards  seen  on 
board  the  vessel ;  nor  does  it  appear  that,  from  that  day  to  this, 
any  man  has  seen  or  heard  from  him,  as  being  alive  on  the  face 
of  the  earth.  The  vessel,  at  the  time  of  this  occurrence,  was 
upon  the  ocean,  and  at  the  distance  of  several  hundred  miles  from 
any  land.  No  other  vessel  was  then  in  view,  nor  was  any  one 
seen  for  several  days  preceding  or  subsequent  to  the  period  al¬ 
luded  to.  Such,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  are  the  circumstances, 
upon  which  the  allegation  is  founded  that  this  man  is  dead.  Per¬ 
mit  me  to  inquire,  can  there  be  a  doubt  of  the  fact  ?  It  is  true 
indeed,  that  the  body  of  the  sufferer  was  not  followed  to  his  death 
bed  in  the  ocean,  by  either  of  the  witnesses,  who  have  spoken  on 
the  occasion.  No  one  has  declared  to  you,  upon  the  sanctity  of 
an  oath,  that  he  watched  the  process  of  that  suffocation  which  is 
described  in  the  indictment,  or  witnessed  the  very  last  gasp  of  the 
deceased.  It  has,  therefore,  been  insisted  on  by  the  counsel  in  the 
defence,  and  with  a  degree  of  earnestness  that  would  denote  their 
sincerity  in  the  objection,  that  our  evidence  of  the  death  is  yet 
incomplete.  The  wide  ocean  must  be  ransacked,  the  dead  body 
must  have  been  discovered,  or  it  would  be  unsafe  and  presumptu¬ 
ous  to  convict  for  the  murder.  Such,  gentlemen,  is  the  argumen 


72 


of  counsel  in  the  defence ;  and  they  have  gravely  opened  their 
books  of  authority,  and  almost  overwhelmed  you  with  their  pre- 
cedents  and  their  cases,  in  order  to  establish  the  validity  of  this 
doctrine.  Gentlemen,  the  occasion  is  too  solemn  to  admit  of  any 
pleasantries  in  replying  to  such  arguments.  I  must,  however,  be 
permitted  to  remark, that  if  the  gentlemen  had  undertaken  to  recite 
before  you, from  any  of  the  mere  tales  of  romance,  some  marvellous 
instances  of  perils  and  escapes,  their  quotations  would  have  been 
quite  as  appropriate,  and  to  my  view,  of  precisely  as  much  weight 
and  import  in  the  cause  now  on  trial,  as  those  they  have  cited 
from  the  folios  of  the  law.  It  is  to  be  observed,  moreover,  that 
mere  cases ,  which  result  in  no  decision  of  a  principle ,  however 
they  may  be  interspersed  with  solemn  sayings  and  suggestions  from 
the  bench,  are  altogether  useless,  and  worse  than  useless,  on  an 
occasion  like  the  present.  They  may  serve,  indeed,  to  inform 
you,  that  a  man  has  been  cast  into  the  sea,  and  was  not  drowned  ; 
that  many  men  have  been  lost ,  and  were  found ,  even  after  all  rea¬ 
sonable  hopes  of  their  existence  were  extinguished;  but,  they 
can  afford  you  no  light,  and  no  information  on  the  question, 
whether  the  man  raferred  to  in  our  indictment  be  living  or  dead. 

But  the  learned  counsel  for  the  prisoners,  aware  of  the  almost 
insurmountable  difficulties,  and  pressure  of  their  case,  have  at¬ 
tempted,  in  the  loftier  flight  of  their  imagination,  to  bring  into 
exercise  still  more  extraordinary  means  of  stirring  up  a  doubt  in 
your  minds,  concerning  the  reality  of  the  death  here  alleged. 
They  have  even  reminded  you  of  the  miraculous  escape  of  the 
great  prophet  of  antiquity  from  the  fury  of  the  lions ;  and  have 
ventured  to  suppose  that  in  the  instance  before  us,  the  same  “  pre¬ 
serving  angel  may  have  walked  forth  upon  the  face  of  the  wa¬ 
ters,  and  snatched  a  drowning  man  from  the  deep.”  Alas,  for 
such  examples,  the  age  of  miracles  has  ceased  ;  the  messengers 
of  God  do  not  now,  as  in  41  olden  time,”  descend  from  their  celes¬ 
tial  abode,  to  mingle  in  the  concerns  of  man  here  below.  In 
latter  times,  the  laws  of  nature  are  left  with  us,  undisturbed,  and 
causes  and  effects  flow  on  regularly,  with  undeviating  order  and 
certainty. 

So  sure,  then,  as  that  the  life  of  Thomas  Baynard ,  was  not  pre¬ 
served  by  a  miracle  ;  if  his  body  as  well  as  spirit,  as,  in  one  memo¬ 
rable  instance  that  might  be  mentioned,  wrere  not  literally  trans¬ 
lated,  that  fatal  night,  from  its  abiding  place  on  earth,  to  another 
and  a  brighter  world,  so  certain  is  the  conclusion,  that  he  is  not 
now  existing. 

Presuming  then,  gentlemen,  that  the  death  of  Thomas  Bay¬ 
nard  has  been  entirely  established  before  you ;  and  that  he  was 
killed  on  the  night  before  mentioned,  1  will  now  proceed  through 
the  remainder  of  the  observations  which  I  am  to  submit  to  you, 
to  demonstrate,  as  1  have  confidence  1  may  do  very  clearly,  that 
one  and  all  of  the  prisoners  at  the  bar,  were  his  murderers. 


73 


Here,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  it  must  be  remembered,  that, 
virtually  at  least,  there  are  now  upon  trial  before  you,  not  one 
only,  but  five  distinct  indictments.  The  prisoners  having  pleaded 
severally ,  each  has  the  privilege,  without  doubt,  to  demand  that 
his  own  case  shall  be  considered  upon  separate  and  independent 
grounds ;  and  it  is  equally  clear,  that  by  your  verdict,  you  may 
convict,  or  acquit,  one  or  all,  according  to  your  views  of  the  evi¬ 
dence. 

Hence  it  has  become  necessary,  that  I  should  present  to  you, 
in  some  degree,  an  analysis  of  the  principal  and  most  material  evi¬ 
dence  in  the  cause,  in  order  to  shew  you  such  parts  of  it,  as  are 
more  particularly  applicable  to  the  individual  case  of  each  of  the 
defendants. 

Having  availed  myself  of  the  little  leisure,  which  was  allowed 
me,  during  the  short  interval  since  the  adjournment,  in  selecting 
and  arranging  some  of  the  most  prominent  circumstances  which 
have  appeared  in  the  case,  1  am  now  enabled  to  perform  this 
task,  in  a  manner,  which  may,  I  hope,  be  clear  and  satisfactory. 
In  this  last  stage  of  my  observations,  it  would  not  be  less  tedious 
than  useless,  were  I  to  attempt  a  recapitulation  of  all  that 
evidence,  by  means  of  which  you  have  been  led  to  a  knowledge 
of  the  horrible  and  most  diabolical  scenes  which  occurred  on 
board  the  schooner  Plattsburgh,  on  the  fatal  night  which  is  re¬ 
ferred  to  in  the  indictment.  That  three  foul  murders,  attended 
with  circumstances  of  most  unparalleled  atrocity,  were  actually 
perpetrated  on  that  occasion,  by  some  person  or  persons  belong¬ 
ing  to  the  vessel,  I  will  assume  as  a  position,  which,  by  this 
time,  is  placed  beyond  the  reach  of  incredulity.  It  only  re¬ 
mains  for  me,  therefore,  to  point  out  to  you,  which  1  shall 
endeavor  to  do,  with  as  much  brevity  as  the  nature,  and  great 
importance  of  the  subject  will  admit,  a  few  particular  facts  and 
circumstances  in  evidence,  as  applicable  to  the  case  of  each  of 
the  prisoners  separately,  tending  to  confirm  the  strong  presump¬ 
tions  of  guilt,  which  have  heretofore  been  considered  as  existing 
against  him. 

With  this  view,  gentlemen,  1  shall  consider  the  case  of  each 
individual,  in  the  order  in  which  they  are  named  in  the  indict¬ 
ment,  and  which,  upon  examination,  will  not,  improbably,  be 
found  in  conformity  with  their  respective  degrees  of  turpitude, 
or,  rather,  of  activity,  in  the  perpetration  of  these  crimes. 

First,  then,  let  us  look  at  the  predicament  of  John  Williams. 
That  this  man  was  on  board  the  vessel  on  the  occasion  alluded 
to,  is  beyond  all  controversy ;  that  he  was  a  considerable  person¬ 
age  on  board,  in  point  of  standing  and  influence  with  the  crew, 
would  be  sufficiently  obvious,  from  what  you  must  have  remarked 
of  his  appearance  and  deportment  at  the  bar,  even  if  you  were 
without  that  entire  confirmation  of  the  fact,  which  is  afforded 
you,  by  the  whole  course  of  the  evidence.  To  go  back  to  the 
driarin  of  his  connexion  with  the  vessel.  I  shall  presently  have 
10 


74 


occasion  to  remind  yon,  that,  from  several  circumstances  in  the 
cause,  there  is  no  small  ground  for  the  belief,  that  the  very  pur¬ 
pose  and  object  of  his  shipment  on  board,  was  to  commit  the 
crimes  of  which  he  stands  accused,  and  thereby  to  possess  himself 
of  the  plunder,  which  unhappily,  was  eventually  obtained. 

There  is,  at  any  rate,  much  cause  to  suspect,  from  several 
circumstances  in  the  case,  that  the  horrible  project  was  engen¬ 
dered  by  Stromer  and  Williams. 

It  was  Williams,  most  certainly,  as  you  learn,  distinctly,  from 
both  Onion  and  Samberson,  who,  in  the  early  part  of  this  voyage, 
if  he  did  not  project,  was,  at  any  rate,  the  principal  agent  in  at¬ 
tempting  the  execution  of  the  hellish  design,  of  killing,  by  poison. 
It  was  Williams,  who,  with  the  thongs  and  ropes  in  his  bosom, 
would  have  been  the  executor,  not,  /  /  resume,  the  inventor ,  of  that 
milder  form  of  piracy,  which  was  once  in  contemplation,  to  bind 
the  officers,  and  leave  them  upon  an  island. 

Above  all,  gentlemen,  and  here  I  must  desire  you  to  rivet  your 
attention  upon  the  circumstance  I  am  about  to  mention ;  it  was 
this  same  Williams,  who,  on  the  night  of  the  massacre,  according 
to  the  explicit  testimony  of  Onion,  gave  out  the  false  alarm  of 
“  sail  ahoi !”  thereby,  to  bring  his  victims  into  one  group  upon 
the  deck,  for  the  obvious  purpose  of  a  more  easy  and  convenient 
immolation  ! 

It  was  Williams,  (if  you  confide  in  Samberson,)  who  was  one  of 
the  two,  who  were  specially  employed,  in  consigning  the  wounded , 
and  half  m ordered  body  of  Baynard,  to  the  mercy  of  the  waves! 

Still  thirsting  for  more  blood.it  was  this  same  sanguinary  mon¬ 
ster,  who,  in  the  midst  of  that  scene  of  horror,  which  has  been 
described  to  you  by  the  witnesses,  seized  Onion  by  the  breast, 
“  and  called  to  his  comrades ,  come  kill  him  and  who,  at  the 
same  moment,  breathed  forth  his  dreadful  imprecations,  and 
threatnings  of  death  upon  Samberson,  as  the  penalty  of  disobe¬ 
dience. 

It  was  Williams,  moreover,  who,  in  consideration,  no  doubt,  of 
his  superior  pretensions,  on  account  of  his  services  and  activity', 
in  putting  aside  the  lawful  authority  of  the  ship,  assumed,  or 
was  assigned,  to  be  second  in  command,  under  the  newly  acquired 
government ;  and,  that  his  influence,  at  least,  at  the  first  moment 
of  the  achievement,  may  even  have  been  superior  to  that  of  the 
nominal  commander,  Stromer  himself,  we  have  much  reason  to 
infer,  from  the  circumstance,  that  it  was  the  voice  of  Williams, 
which  pronounced  the  decision,  the  ship  is  ours,  “  We'll  stick  her 
for  A'orwat/  /” 

It  was  Williams  also,  who  directed  and  assisted  in  the  altera¬ 
tion  of  the  papers,  and  for  the  residue  of  the  voyage,  assumed  the 
name,  and  caused  it  to  be  inserted,  of  the  murdered  Yeiser. 

Lastly,  it  was  Williams,  who,  when  the  “  garments  were  part¬ 
ed,”  that  had  belonged  to  the  three  victims,  shared  them  with 
Stromer,  the  only  man  on  board,  whose  claims  to  these  spoils  of 


75 


rapine  and  blood,  were  deemed  to  be  on  an  equality  with  his  own.! 

Thus  far,  gentlemen,  it  will  be  perceived,  if  you  remember, 
minutely,  the  evidence  in  the  case,  that  I  have  proceeded  in  my 
enumeration  of  circumstances,  as  applicable  to  this  man,  upon  the 
most  direct  and  positive  testimony  of  Onion  or  Samberson;  and  in 
most  instances,  both  ;  and  that  all  1  have  yet  stated,  has  refer¬ 
ence  only,  to  such  of  his  acts ,  as  happened  to  have  occured  with¬ 
in  the  immediate  sphere  of  their  personal  observation.  It  is, 
however,  fit  and  proper,  before  I  dismiss  from  my  mind  the  con¬ 
sideration  of  the  evidence,  as  it  bears  upon  this  ringleader  of  the 
ruffians,  that  I  should  call  to  your  remembrance,  some  of  his  say¬ 
ings ,  or  rather  boastings ,  subsequent  to  the  catastrophe,  in  relation 
to  the  fell  deed  he  had  achieved. 

You  must  remember,  gentlemen,  I,  surely,  shall  not  forget,  the 
circumstances  which  were  related  by  Samberson,  of  that  horrible 
repast ,  that  festival  of  death ,  where  all  the  fiends  were  gathered 
together,  on  the  first  morning  which  had  yet  shone  upon  the  dark 
deeds  of  the  preceding  night.  You  will  remember  the  course  of 
conversation,  and  remark,  which  prevailed  on  the  occasion  ;  when 
each  man  was  amusing  his  comrades,  with  as  much  humor  and 
pleasantry,  as  he  would  have  shewn,  in  recounting  his  sports  and 
his  pastimes,  by  recitals  of  the  hellish  exploits  he  had  so  recent¬ 
ly  performed.  It  was  a  meeting  indeed,  resembling  more  a 
congregation  of  devils,  than  an  assembly  of  beings  wearing  the 
form  and  feature  of  man.  Gentlemen,  it  is  to  the  remarks,  which 
were  made  on  this  horrible  occasion,  or  rather,  to  what  fell  from 
the  unhallowed  lips  of  Williams,  in  particular,  (for  I  would  not 
stir  up  your  feelings  of  abhorrence,  by  a  repetition  of  more,  on 
this  subject,  than  may  be  useful,  with  a  view  to  public  justice, 
and  the  merits  of  this  cause,)  that  I  am  now  desirous,  for  a  single 
moment,  to  call  your  attention.  With  regard  then,  to  Williams, 
it  will  be  recollected,  that  he  boasted ,  not  confessed ,  that  it  was  he 
who  first  levelled  the  captain  upon  the  deck  ;  and  he  also,  who 
threw  the  body  into  the  sea. 

It  is  also  to  be  noticed  (though  the  circumstance  is  almost  too 
monstrous  to  be  endured,  even  in  imagination,)  that  the  compan¬ 
ions  of  this  ruthless  savage,  were  regaled,  on  this  occasion,  not 
merely  with  the  fact  of  this  achievement,  but  with  descriptions 
also  of  the  piteous  look  and  supplications  of  the  victim,  and  other 
horrid  incidents  which  accompanied  its  execution.  I  could  re¬ 
mind  you,  also,  of  several  other  circumstances  of  not  much  less 
horrid  aspect  ;  such  as  the  history  he  gave  to  his  companions  of 
his  former  life  and  experiences ;  his  murders, his  trials  and  escapes  ; 
but  I  forbear.  Nothing  surely  need  be  added  to  show  you  the 
deep,  unparalleled,  unfathomable  wickedness  of  this  man. 

1  have  been  thus  minute,  in  remarking  upon  the  circumstances 
which  relate  only  to  the  case  of  Williams  ;  not  because  I  could 
imagine  that  any  single  item,  in  the  black  catalogue  which  has 
been  presented  to  you,  would  have  been  deemed  insufficient  to 


76 


render  certain  his  conviction  ;  but  because  I  have  supposed  it  might 
be  salutary, in  reference  to  the  end  of  all  public  prosecution  and  pun* 
ishment,  to  exhibit  the  odiousness  of  crime,  by  an  example  almost 
without  a  parallel  in  judicial  history. 

With  regard  to  the  circumstances  which  have  appeared  in  ev¬ 
idence,  as  applicable  to  three  of  the  remaining  prisoners,  I  shall 
be  extremely  brief;  contenting  myself,  indeed,  with  a  simple 
statement  of  the  fact  which  I  would  have  you  consider  ,  and  leave 
you  to  make  your  own  inference  and  comment. 

The  person,  next  in  the  indictment  to  Williams,  and  next  to 
him  in  guilt  also,  as  I  have  supposed,  is  John  Peter  Rog.  With 
respect  to  this  man,  the  circumstances  which  l  have  to  mention 
are  few.  comparatively  in  number,  but,  to  my  view,  they  are  preg¬ 
nant  with  much  import  and  signification.  You  will  remember 
the  circumstance  which  was  stated  to  you,  by  Onion,  as  to  an  as¬ 
semblage  of  the  assassins  which  was  convened  in  the  cabin,  and 
which  the  witness  has  denominated  a  council  of  war,  on  the  night 
of  the  insurrection,  when  the  subject  of  the  deliberation  was  the 
life  or  death  of  this  witness. 

1  pray  you,  also,  to  recollect,  that  John  Peter  Rog  was  one  of 
these  fratricide  judges ,  who,  in  less  than  half  an  hour  after  three 
foul  murders  were  committed  upon  the  decks,  sat  and  deliberated 
and  gave  his  voice  in  the  sentence  which  was  passed  on  the  occa¬ 
sion. 

It  was  Rog  also,  let  me  remind  you,  who  according  to  the  dis¬ 
tinct  declaration  of  Samberson,  was  the  only  assistant  of  Williams, 
in  throwing  overboard  the  body  of  Baynard ! 

You  will  remember,  also,  that  it  was  this  same  Rog  who  boast¬ 
ed  of  having  assisted  in  the  captain’s  death,  by  an  implement  pro¬ 
bably  of  his  own  device,  a  stone  in  a  stocking.  It  was, Rog,  more¬ 
over,  who,  “skipping  with  exultation  upon  the  docfc;  boasted  of 
the  great  exploits  which  the  “  little  yankee”  had  ^achieved.” 
Such,  gentlemen,  are  the  mere  auxiliary  proofs  against  this  pris¬ 
oner,  as  they  have  been  stated  or  corroborated  by  the  testimony 
of  both  Samberson  and  Onion. 

As  to  Frederick,  the  next  in  order  upon  the  indictment,  it  must 
he  noted,  that,  according  to  the  explicit  declaration  of  Onion,  it 
was  this  man,  most  particularly,  whom  he  distinguished  close  be¬ 
hind  him  on  the  deck,  at  the  moment  of  receiving  the  first  blow 
upon  his  head,  as  he  has  described ;  and,  except  that  this  stroke 
was  not  fatal,  have  we  not  imuch  reason  to  infer,  that  it  was  occa¬ 
sioned,  not  bv  the  “ flapping  of  the  boom”  as  was  supposed,  but 
by  no  other  implement  than  that  same  “s/Mie  in  the  stocking,” 
which,  in  the  perpetration  of  one  other  murder,  this  wretch  was 
heard  to  boast  of  having  employed  so  dextrously. 

It  will  also  be  recollected,  who  it  was,  and  that  it  was  no  other 
than  Frederick,  who  gave  the  word  that  first  led  to  the  lurking 
place  of  Onion  ;  and  that  it  was  he  also, who  called  “  for  the  hall¬ 
iard  to  rouse  the  bugger'1  from  his  concealment :  that  he  demanded 


77 


ihe  keys  of  Samberson,  'at  the  very  moment  when  the  work  of 
desolation  was  completed ;  that  Frederick,  moreover,  was  one 
of  the  judges,  who  sat  in  consultation  upon  Onion's  fate,  and  stood 
sentinel ,  with  his  musket ,  before  the  bread-locker,  until  the  sen¬ 
tence  of  acquittal  was  pronounced  ! 

To  cap  the  climax  of  this  evidence,  we  have  authority  to  be¬ 
lieve,  if  we  can  rely  on  the  veracity  of  our  witnesses,  that  this 
was  not  the  first  instance  of  murder  and  piracy  in  which  he  had 
been  engaged.  That  in  a  moment  of  triumph  and  exultation  at  the 
recent  victory,  he  had  the  effrontery  to  boast,  that  this  was  only 
the  fifth  enterprize  of  the  kind,  to  which  he  had  been  a  party. 

As  to  Peterson,  I  have  but  little  more  than  a  single  observation 
to  submit  to  you ;  that  he  was  on  deck,  and  upon  his  watch, when 
the  scene  of  blood  was  commenced,  is  manifest  upon  the  evidence  ; 
that  there  is  not  a  single  circumstance  of  alleviation  in  his  case 
is  not  less  apparent.  This  would  be  enough  to  establish  the  guilt 
of  this  man,  as  a  confederate.  But,  alas,  there  is  one  damning 
circumstance  in  the  cause,  which  must  give  to  this  monster,  even 
a  pre-eminence  in  cruelty  over  all  the  rest  of  his  vindictive  as¬ 
sociates.  He,  also,  was  a  member  of  that  infernal  tribunal  in  the 
cabin, who  were  to  adjudicate  upon  Onion, and  it  was  his  voice  alone , 
which  was  in  favor  of  his  death  ! ! 

I  come  now,  gentlemen,  to  the  case  of  Nathaniel  White,  the  last 
named  of  these  defendants  ;  and  here,  I  will  have  the  frankness 
to  admit  that  his  case  is,  undoubtedly,  entitled  to  separate,  and 
very  careful  consideration.  It  cannot  be  denied,  that  much  of 
the  evidence  which  has  already  been  commented  upon,  and  which, 
in  every  possible  view,  must  be  considered  so  conclusive,  and  so 
fatal  in  its  operation  upon  his  associates,  is,  in  some  measure,  lost 
in  its  application  to  him.  So  true  is  this,  gentlemen,  that  upon 
my  first,  which  was,  however,  a  very  cursory  view  of  the  force 
and  bearing  of  the  testimony,  as  it  was  delivered  in  by  the  wit¬ 
nesses,  at  the  opening  of  this  cause,  I  had  even  entertained  some 
portion  of  doubt  as  to  his  full  participation  in  the  guilt  of  those 
with  whom  he  is  associated,  on  this  trial.  Had  such  an  impres¬ 
sion  still  continued  upon  my  mind,  1  do  protest  to  you,  in  the  most 
solemn  manner,  and  in  the  presence  of  that  God,  who  searcheth 
and  who  knoweth,  the  hearts  of  men,  that  I  would  as  soon  take 
the  station  of  any  prisoner  at  that  bar,  as  I  would  do  aught  against 
the  life  of  that  man. 

But,  gentlemen,  I  have  since  perceived,  that  the  scruples  I  had 
entertained,  were  merely  owing  to  the  very  limited  and  imper¬ 
fect  estimation  I  had  formed  of  the  weight  and  bearing  of  the  ev¬ 
idence,  at  the  mere  opening  of  this  cause.  On  further  and  more 
critical  examination  of  that  evidenee,  1  am  now  entirely  satisfied 
myself,  and  I  think  you,  also,  will  be  convinced,  that  there  are 
certain  circumstances  in  the  case  of  this  man,  also,  which  are  en¬ 
tirely  irreconcileable  with  the  supposition,  or  even  the  possibili¬ 
ty  of  his  innocence.  Indeed,  it  does  appear  to  me,  from  several 


78 


facts,  which  have  been  disclosed  in  the  cause,  that  there  is  much 
ground  for  the  supposition,  that  being  a  s/y,  cunning  man,  to  use 
the  language  of  one  witness,  especially,  who  has  testified  respect¬ 
ing  him,  he  may  have  been,  and  was,  in  all  human  probability,  a 
principal  agent,  and  even  a  prompter  in  all  the  dire  scenes  which 
have  been  described.  The  first  observation  which  1  have  to  sub¬ 
mit  to  you,  in  relation  to  this  man,  and  his  connexion  with  the 
murderers,  is  that  throughout  the  whole  course  of  the  evidence 
of  Onion  and  Samberson,  there  is  not  a  single  circumstance,  (ex¬ 
cept  the  mere  absence  of  direct  and  positive  proof  of  his  immedi¬ 
ate  agency  in  destroying  the  lives  of  the  three  victims  who  were 
slain  on  the  fatal  night,)  tending  to  favor  the  supposition  that  he 
was  not  concerned  with  his  comrades  in  the  perpetration  of  the 
deed.  What,  then,  gentlemen,  let  me  a<k,  are  the  circumstan¬ 
ces  which  stand  opposed  to  his  pretensions  of  innocence  1  Although 
on  board  the  ship,  a  mere  foremast  hand,  yet  from  his  appearance 
at  the  bar,  wre  have  authority  to  inter  that  he  must  have  been  a 
man  of  no  inconsiderable  power  and  influence  with  his  messmates. 
It  was  his  watch  on  deck ,  when  the  scene  of  murder  commenced. 
Onion  was  struck  down ,  Samberson  was  threatened ;  dismay  and 
desolation  were  stalking  abroad, on  that  horrible  night, yet  no  man 
has  said  or  even  pretended,  that  the  life  or  limb  of  White,  was 
either  menaced  or  assailed  ;  he  was  as  safe  among  the  assassins, 
as  though  he  had  been  their  friend,  their  comrade,  their  brother. 
But,  gentlemen,  there  are  other  circumstances,  in  this  case, whose 
import  admits  of  no  diversity  of  interpretation.  It  is  stated  by 
Samberson,  that  White,  also,  was  one,  who,  with  Frederick  and 
others,  came  down  to  the  cabin  in  pursuit  of  Onion,  before  he  was 
drawn  from  his  hiding  place.  He  was  silent,  indeed,  on  this  occa¬ 
sion  ;  but  his  presence  and  apparent  association  with  Rog  and 
Frederick,  whose  visit  to  the  cabin,  at  that  time,  was  for  the 
special  purpose  of  dragging  the  fugitive.  Onion,  to  the  slaughter, 
is  unquestionable  proof  of  his  intentional  co-operation  in  their 
proceedings.  I  pray  you,  most  particularly  to  consider,  that  all 
this  occurred  within  less  than  five  minutes  after  three  foul  mur¬ 
ders  had  been  perpetrated  immediately  before  his  eyes. 

There  is  yet  another  circumstance,  of  much  greater  weight  and 
signiticancy,  as  regards  the  character  of  White  in  all  these  trans¬ 
actions. 

You  wilt  remember,  gentlemen,  it  is  in  evidence,  from  the  ex¬ 
plicit  statement  of  both  Onion  and  Samberson,  that  immediately 
after  the  officers  of  the  vessel  were  disposed  ofl  and  she  was  re¬ 
duced  to  the  possession  of  the  mutineers,  a  consultation  was  hold- 
on  in  the  cabin  among  the  principal  persons  on  board,  with  regard 
to  the  course  which  should  now  be  pursued  with  the  prize.  It 
was  also  stated  by  the  witnesses,  that  White,  most  certainly,  was 
present  on  this  occasion;  and,  in  fact,  that  he  and  Stromcr  wrere 
the  principal  spokesmen  in  expressing  their  opinions  upon  the  in¬ 
teresting  subject,  then  under  consideration.  Stromcr  was  in  favor 


79 


of  shaping  their  course  for  Norway;  White  was  decidedly  for 
South  America  ;  considering,  no  doubt,  that  the  well  known  con¬ 
fused  and  distracted  state  of  that  country  would  afford  the  best 
chance  of  escape  from  the  pursuer.  Gentlemen,  I  submit  to  you, 
if  it  be  not  repugnant  to  every  thing  we  know  of  human  nature, 
and  of  the  feelings  and  motives,  which  govern  mankind,  that  an 
innocent  man  would  or  could  have  acted,  as  White  did,  on  the  oc¬ 
casion  alluded  to ;  that  within  five  minutes  after  having  been  even 
a  spectator  of  such  scenes  of  horror  as  had  been  passing  before 
him,  he  could  have  maintained  all  that  serenity,  and  composure, 
and  firmness,  which  were  so  strikingly  exemplified  in  this  cabin 
consultation  ?  The  supposition  is  u  ’ gainst  nature ,”  and  cannot  be 
admitted. 

But,  gentlemen,  I  hasten  to  bring  to  your  recollection  another 
circumstance,  which,  to  my  view,  is  a  mountain  of  proof  against 
this  man,  which  it  would  require  a  miracle  to  remove. 

Remember,  it  is  distinctly  in  evidence,  that  several  days  after 
the  vessel  had  been  put  upon  her  course  for  Norway,  and  when, 
no  doubt,  the  murderers,  elated  with  the  success  of  their  enter- 
prize,  had  lost  all  fear  of  detection  ;  a  conversation  took  place 
between  Onion  and  White,  relative  to  the  transactions  which  had 
recently  occurred  on  board.  In  the  course  of  this  conversation, 
it  is  stated  by  the  witness,  that  White  deliberately  declared  to 
him,  that  he  had  been  apprized,  (or  to  use  the  language  of  the 
witness.)  “  he  had  known,”  for  some  time  before  its  consumma¬ 
tion,  that  the  plan  of  insurrection  and  murder,  had  been  formed 
among  the  crew;  that  he  should  have  divulged  the  circumstance 
to  the  captain,  but  was  afraid  his  own  life  might  be  endangered  by 
the  discovery. 

Gentlemen,  the  first  part  of  this  declaration  importing  his  pre¬ 
vious  acquaintance  with  the  plot  is,  undoubtedly,  to  be  believed, 
but  I  must  be  permitted  to  say,  and  I  shall  presently  have  occasion 
to  shew  to  you  my  reasons  for  the  assertion,  that  the  apology  he 
has  given  for  the  concealment  of  his  knowledge,  is  futile  in  the 
extreme.  Proceeding  then  upon  the  supposition  that,  for  a  con¬ 
siderable  time  previous  to  the  catastrophe,  this  man  had  been  made 
acquainted  with  the  direful  scheme  which  was  in  meditation,  it  be¬ 
comes  most  material  to  consider,  how ,  and  when ,  and  upon  what 
specific  terms  and  conditions ,  he  was  invited  to  take  upon  himself 
the  custody  of  this  secret.  In  the  ordinary  course  of  events,  how 
should  it  have  happened  that  an  innocent  man,  one  who  so  recently 
had  been  assayed  and  found  wanting  in  villany,  should,  nevertheless, 
have  been  trusted  as  the  bosom  confidant  of  these  murderers? 
The  infernal  enterprize  was  yet  in  its  inception  ;  the  success  of  its 
execution  must  necessarily  have  been  involved  in  doubts  and  un¬ 
certainties.  With  reference  to  such  a  state  of  things,  it  becomes 
most  essential  to  inquire,  by  what  assurances  of  fidelity,  by  what 
oaths  of  allegiance,  this  shrewd  association  of  ruffians  would  have 
been  induced  to  confide  in  any  one  but  the  “  very  best  of  cut  throats' ' 


80 


to  be  the  keeper  of  their  secret ;  by  what  unaccountable  principle, 
in  human  nature,  could  they  have  been  actuated  in  allowing  the 
fate  of  their  project,  and  probably  the  safety  too  of  their  lives,  to 
remain  for  many  days,  at  the  mercy  of  that  man  whom  they  had 
found,  on  examination  to  be  too  tender  of  conscience  to  become  a 
partaker  in  their  crimes  ?  1  submit  to  you,  gentlemen,  that  there 

is  but  one  possible  solution  of  which  the  case  is  susceptible. 

That  this  defendant  was  confessedly  acquainted  with  the  exist¬ 
ence  of  the  conspiracy,  and  yet  was  suffered  to  survive  the  horri¬ 
ble  night  of  its  execution,  are  circumstances  which  afford  to  my 
mind  indisputable  evidence  that  he  had  rendered  himself  worthy,  by 
his  co-operation  or  connivance  ot  the  high  trust  reposed  in  him  by 
the  conspirators.  It  will  not,  1  think,  be  found  “  in  tale  or  in  his¬ 
tory”  that  the  fell  purpose  of  the  murderer  has  often  been  avowed 
beyond  the  dark  and  hidden  recesses  within  which  it  u  as  engender¬ 
ed  ;  and  the  circumstances  of  the  case  must  be  peculiar,  indeed, 
which,  in  a  moral  or  even  legal  point  of  view,  could  admit  of  any 
discrimination  between  the  man  who  knows  and  will  conceal  the  de¬ 
sign,  and  the  one  whose  hand  as  well  as  heart  is  concerned  in  its 
execution. 

But  what,  again,  shall  be  said  of  this  defendant ;  and  of  the  rea¬ 
sons,  or  rather  pretexts  upon  which  he  attempts  to  justify  his 
wicked  fidelity  to  these  assassins,  in  having  failed  to  betray  the  trust 
they  had  contideu  to  him  ?  He  was  apprehensive,  it  is  urged,  that 
his  own  personal  safet}-,  and  even  life,  might  have  been  endanger¬ 
ed  b}^  the  disclosure  Permit  me  to  observe,  that  this  was  indeed 
a  vain  and  idle  fear,  in  which  an}'  man  of  much  less  nerve  than 
the  sturdy  sailor  whom  you  see  at  the  bar,  would  have  been  asham¬ 
ed  to  indulge  on  the  occasion  alluded  to.  1  submit  to  you,  at  any 
rate,  that  an  innocent  man,  na}\  any  man,  not  steeped  in  guilt,  like 
Stromer  or  Williams,  would  have  been  prompt  and  instant,  even 
at  the  imminent  hazard  of  his  own  life,  in  the  developement  of 
this  most  foul  and  horrible  machination. 

Yet  it  may  be  useful  to  inquire,  with  reference  to  the  nature  and 
circumstances  of  the  case,  was  there  in  reality,  any  reasonable 
ground  for  this  affected  timidity  ?  A  single  moment’s  reflection 
will,  I  think,  be  sufficient  to  convince  you,  there  was  none,  and  that 
White  must  so  have  understood  it. 

He  was  a  seaman,  and  probably,  for  many  years,  had  been  ein- 
ploved  in  that  course  of  life.  He  knew  the  state  ot  the  ship,  and 
the  exact  number  of  individuals  of  which  her  officers  and  crew 
were  composed.  It  was  known  to  him,  that  the  muskets  and 
pistols,  and  all  the  other  ordinary  implements  of  defence  were  in 
the  custody,  or  always  within  the  reach  ot  the  officers  of  the. 
vessel ;  it  was  known  to  him,  more  especially  that  the  three  men, 
Onion  and  Samberson  and  the  cook  were  strangers  to  the  c.onspi-. 
racy,  and  that  in  case  a  conflict  should  ensue,  they  would  all  have 
been  arrayed,  and  in  arms,  on  the  side  of  their  officers.  It,  then, 
in  the  midst  of  all  his  pretended  alarms,  he  could  still  have  had. 


81 


the  conscience ,  consistently  'with  tile  tenor  of  his  engagements  to  the 
conspirators,  to  reckon  upon  himself  also,  as  being  one  of  the 
number  who  might  lawfully  take  part  in  defence  of  the  ship,  he 
must  at  once  nave  perceived,  that,  even  on  a  computation  of  mere 
physical  force,  there  would  scarcely  have  been  a  preponderance 
in  favor  of  the  assailants. 

But,  above  all,  it  is  to  be  remembered  that  this  intelligent  and 
experienced  mariner  cannot  have  been  ignorant  that  it  is  not  by 
the  exercise  of  mere  physical  strength  that  the  fate  of  an  insur¬ 
rection,  at  sea,  is  ordinarily  decided.  He  must  have  known  that 
a  single  officer  on  such  an  occasion  is  himself  a  host  in  defence  of 
his  station  and  his  ship ;  that  there  is,  in  fact,  an  influence  belong¬ 
ing  to  legitimate  command ,  on  the  ocean  as  well  as  land,  which 
almost  supersedes  the  agency  of  corporal  strength ;  a  mysterious 
influence,  by  whose  aid,  the  presence,  the  mere  voice  of  one  in¬ 
dividual,  arrayed  in  authority,  has  often  proved  sufficient  to  over¬ 
awe  and  subdue,  as  it  were,  by  a  spell  of  the  Magician ,  the  cow¬ 
ardly  heart  of  a  lawless  multitude.  Whether  the  habits  of  this 
seaman  have  heretofore  been  those  of  obedience  or  obstinacy ,  it  is 
altogether  incredible  that,  in  the  course  of  his  maritime  experi¬ 
ences,  he  can  have  failed  to  witness ,  on  some  occasion,  if  he  have 
not  actually  felt ,  the  wonderful  effect  of  the  principle  I  have  ad¬ 
verted  to;  and  the  terrors  of  that  discipline,  by  which  alone  order 
and  good  government,  especially  upon  the  ocean,  could  be,  as 
they  are,  so  generally,  maintained. 

With  such  views  of  the  subject,  which  cannot  have  failed  to 
present  themselves  to  the  mind  of  this  sly  and  cunning  conspirator, 
it  is  almost  impossible  he  could  have  doubted,  on  the  occasion 
alluded  to,  that  if  the  officers  of  the  ship  had  been  duly  forewarn¬ 
ed  of  the  horrors  that  were  impending,  not  an  half  hour  would 
have  elapsed  ere  he  had  seen  the  blood  hounds,  instead  of  en¬ 
joying  the  triumph  of  victory,  overwhelmed  and  in  chains. 

From  every  circumstance  of  the  case,  there  is,  then,  but  too 
much  reason  to  infer  that  it  was,  after  all,  the  frustration  of  the 
attempt ,  and  not  the  consummation  of  the  deed ;  it  was  the  discom¬ 
fiture  of  the  assassins,  and  not  their  vengeance  in  case  of  detection, 
which  alone  could  have  been  deprecated,  by  this  subtle  by-stander 
in  the  scene  of  bloodshed  that  ensued,  as  the  consequence  most 
likely  to  result  from  his  seasonable  disclosure  of  the  conspiracy. 

What,  then,  I  repeat,  can  be  urged  in  support  of  that  frail  and 
guilty  apology  which  is  given  you  by  this  man  for  having  treasured 
up  in  his  breast,  for  days  and  perhaps  weeks,  that  fatal  and  horrible 
secret  whose  timely  disclosure  would,  he  knew,  have  been  the 
means  of  rescuing  the  lives  of  three  innocent  fellow  beings  who 
were  his  friends,  and  possibly  of  saving  the  very  souls  of  his  com¬ 
panions  at  this  Bar,  from  that  everlasting  condemnation  which  may 
be  pronounced  upon  them  at  the  Bar  of  their  God  ?  Gentlemen, 
I  do  contend  that  concealment ,  in  such  a  case,  under  almost  any 
circumstances  that  can  be  conceived,  is  in  every  respect  equivalent 
11 

. 


82 


to  an  open  participation  in  the  deed  ;  that  it  is  at  any  rate,  utterly 
incompatible,  with  even  the  possibility  of  innocence.  But  what, 
more  especially,  shall  be  said  of  the  character  of  that  man,  who 
with  such  “  perilous  business”  in  his  bosom,  anticipating1  for  such 
a  length  of  time,  the  great  events  which  were  to  ensue,  could 
nevertheless  have  had  the  hardihood  to  maintain  his  customary 
composure  and  serenity,  to  mingle  as  usual,  with  Ins  messmates 
in  their  sports  and  their  labors,  and  even  to  indulge,  as  you  are 
told  he  did,  in  his  jests  and  his  jokes  and  all  the  natural  levities  of 
his  disposition,  as  though  he  had  regarded,  but  as  some  light  and 
trivial  occurrence,  all  those  accumulated  horrors  which  were,  so 
soon,  to  burst  upon  the  heads  of  the  unsuspecting,  and  innocent 
beings  by  whom  he  was  surrounded  ? 

I  will  leave  you,  gentlemen,  to  make  your  own  comment  upon 
these  circumstances!  To  my  view,  then,  every  word  which  is 
contained  in  that  unguarded  confession  of  White  which  is  stated  by 
the  witnesses,  seems  written  in  blood !  Indeed  this  single  circum¬ 
stance,  were  it  standing  in  the  cause,  independent  of  all  others  and 
alone,  1  could  not  but  consider  as  being  -absolutely  conclusive  of 
his  guilt ;  as  much  so  indeed,  as  though  his  deliberate  acknowledg¬ 
ment  of  the  crime  charged  against  him  were  recorded  before  an 
hundred  magistrates. 

Gentlemen  of  the  Jury,  I  have  already  detained  you  much  too 
long  on  this  occasion,  and  will  immediately  conclude  my  remarks. 

In  a  public  point  of  view,  as  weli  as  in  relation  to  the  miserable 
men  at  the  Bar,  the  cKuse  which  you  are  to  decide  is  most  inte¬ 
resting  and  important.  I  have  only  to  hope  that,  in  formingyour 
opinion  upon  it,  you  may  be  guided  by  the  light  of  reason  and 
truth. 

Gentlemen,  I  am  full}'  aware  that  it  is  a  most  piteous  spectacle, 
a  sad  and  sorry  sight  which  is  presented  to  you,  this  group  of  your 
fellow  beings  standing  together  at  the  bar  of  justice  on  trial  for 
their  lives  ;  standing  as  it  were  on  the  brink  of  eternity,  and  ap¬ 
pealing  to  you  for  deliverance  from  the  dreadful  abyss  which  is 
yawning  to  receive  them.  You  have  I  know7,  a  painful,  a  fearful 
duty  to  perform,  but  it  is  without  doubt,  your  intention  to  fulfil  it 
with  the  fortitude  and  firmness  of  men.  Still  I  must  remember  that 
you  are  but  men  endued  also  as  I  know,  w  ith  a  full  portion  of 
those  sympathies  and  sensibilities  which  constitute  the  more  amia¬ 
ble  and  better  part  of  our  nature.  It  is  therefore  very  natural 
!o  conclude,  indeed  it  would  be  injustice  to  your  character  w'ere  I 
to  suppose  it  to  be  otherwise,  that  during  the  progress  of  this  trial, 
and  while  the  pitiable  objects  upon  whose  doom  you  are  to  pro¬ 
nounce  are  immediately  before  your  eyes,  you  cannot  but  feel  a 
disposition  for  the  moment,  at  least,  to  overlook  their  malefactions, 
and  to  indulge  in  emotions  of  pity  for  their  suffering!  and  dangers. 
It  is  nevertheless  my  duty  to  remind  you  that,  however  innocent 
it  may  be  at  this  time,  when  the  pathetic  appeals  w  hich  have  been 
made  to  you  by  the  counsel  for  the  prisoners,  are  yet  ringing  in 


83 


vour  ears,  and  inclining1  your  hearts  to  unmerited  clemency, 
to  indulge  in  momentary  sensations  of  the  nature  which  has  been 
mentioned;  yet  that  this  indulgence  should  be  but  momentary; 
that  it  would  be  improper,  I  had  almost  said,  impious,  were  you 
to  permit  any  such  feelings  to  mingle  in  your  deliberations  when 
you  shall  have  reth'ed  from  your  seats ;  when  you  shall  come  to 
pronounce  upon  the  sanctity  of  your  oaths,  a  final  decision  in  the 
cause.  It  may  not  be  improper  for  me  also  to  remind  you,  that, 
even  if  it  were  fit,  as  it  surely  is  not,  that  your  deliberations  should 
be  influenced,  in  any  measure,  by  your  sensibilities  on  this  occa¬ 
sion,  there  are  yet  other  objects,  besides  the  wretched  men  at  the 
bar,  which  have  been  presented  to  your  view  in  the  course  of  this 
enquiry,  and  are  also  calculated  to  call  those  sensibilities  into  exer¬ 
cise.  The  dead  as  well  as  the  living  have  some  claim  to  your  recol¬ 
lections  ;  and  may  we  not  imagine  that  the  troubled  spirits  of  the 
victims,  who  on  the  fatal  night,  were  “  sent  to  their  account,” 
thus  untimely  and  unprepared,  still  hover  o’er  the  deep  wherein 
their  bodies  were  plunged,  and  cry  aloud  for  vengeance  on  the 
heads  of  these  foul  and  inhuman  Murderers  ! ! 

Gentlemen,  the  murder  which  is  charged  upon  the  defendants, 
is  not  as  you  have  perceived  of  any  common  and  ordinary  char¬ 
acter.  Not  one  individual  only,  but  three  innocent  and  valuable 
members  of  society,  in  one  fell  moment,  of  family,  of  friends,  of 
life  “  despatched”  by  the  hand  of  these  ruthless  and  sanguinary 
monsters  ! !  Even  in  such  a  case,  however,  it  is  very  far  from  my 
desire,  to  stir  up  within  you  any  feeling  of  abhorrence  or  indigna¬ 
tion  that  might  tend  to  produce  an  improper  bias  upon  your  judg¬ 
ment  ;  but  in  such  a  case  surely,  every  administrator  of  the  laws, 
ought  to  be  indulged  in  the  strongest  terms  that  can  be  used  in  his 
demand  of  public  justice.  Let  me  then  conjure  you,  by  the  sacred 
obligation  of  your  oaths  ;  let  me  conjure  you  in  the  name  of  your 
country  ;  in  “  the  name  of  the  living  God,  of  whose  eternal  justice 
you  are  now  administering  that  portion  which  belongs  to  us  on  this 
side  the  grave,”  to  divest  your  minds  of  every  improper  feel¬ 
ing  or  bias  on  this  occasion,  and  pronounce  your  decision  without 
the  fear  of  any  other  consequence  than  such  as  might  result  from 
a  failure  in  the  correct  performance  of  your  duty.  Let  it,  above 
all,  be  remembered,  that  it  is  justice  not  mercy  which  you  are  call¬ 
ed  to  dispense  on  this  occasion  ;  and  that  from  the  very  throne  of 
justice,  on  high,  the  commandment  is  given  to  us,  that  “  Whose 
sheddeth  the  blood  of  man ,  by  man  shall  his  blood  be  shed  ! !  /” 

Judge  Story  then  addressed  the  Jury.  We  regret  that  it  is  in 
our  power  to  give  only  a  sketch  of  his  very  able  Charge. 

Gentlemen  of  the  Jury , 

IF  your  feelings  have  been  like  mine,  in  the  investigation  of  thfo 
solemn  and  important  cause,  you  will  find  relief  in  the  considera¬ 
tion,  that  our  arduous  duties  are  approaching  to  an  end.  It  is  in 


84 


Vain  for  us  to  endeavor  to  conceal  from  ourselves,  that  we  are  men, 
and  liable  to  be  influenced  by  the  eloquence  of  counsel,  in  a  case 
like  the  present.  But  it  is  our  duty,  gentlemen,  to  guard  our¬ 
selves  against  being  carried  away  by  our  feelings.  The  task  we 
have  to  perform  is  a  painful  offe,  but  our  obligations  to  society  and 
to  our  consciences,  forbid  us  to  shrink  from  its  performance.  We 
must  endeavor  to  dismiss  from  our  minds  every  impression,  w  hich 
has  a  tendency  to  lead  us  away  from  an  impartial  consideration  of 
the  law  and  the  evidence. 

The  prisoners  at  the  bar,  gentlemen,  are  indicted  for  piratically 
and  feloniously,  willfully,  and  with  malice  aforethought,  taking  away 
the  life  of  Thomas  Baynard,  upon  the  high  seas,  on  the  twenty- 
second  day  of  July,  1816.  The  indictment  contains  two  counts  ; 
the  first  one  alleges  that  the  death  was  caused  by  drowning  ;  the 
second,  that  it  was  caused  by  blows,  and  subsequent  drowning.  It 
is  unnecessary  for. you  to  pay  any  particular  attention  to  this  dis¬ 
tinction.  The  proper  question  for  you  to  determine,  is,  w  hether 
Baynard  came  to  his  death  by  drowning,  substantially,  as  stated  in 
the  indictment.  There  is,  how  ever,  a  preliminary  question,  relat¬ 
ing  to  the  place  of  the  transaction,  and  the  jurisdiction  of  this 
Court ;  but  it  is  conceded  by  the  prisoners’  counsel,  that  if  the 
murder  was  committed  at  all,  it  w  as  committed  on  the  high  seas, 
and  that  the  prisoners  were  first  brought  into  this  district.  It  fol¬ 
lows,  of  course,  that  this  Court,  under  these  circumstances,  has  ju¬ 
risdiction  in  the  cause. 

The  first  question  for  you  to  determine,  is,  whether  a  murder 
has,  in  fact,  been  committed  ;  you  will  then  consider  whether  all, 
or  any,  and  which,  of  the  prisoners,  w  ere  concerned  in  the  perpe¬ 
tration  of  it.  In  the  opening,  and  throughout  the  whole  of  the  de¬ 
fence,  frequent  allusion  has  been  made  to  the  imperfection  of  hu¬ 
man  testimony.  It  is  indeed  true,  that  human  testimony  is  not 
infallible.  False  evidence  is  often  given,  sometimes  through  mis¬ 
take,  sometimes  from  corrupt  motives;  still,  human  testimony  is 
almost  the  only  means  we  have  of  coming  to  a  knowledge  of  facts  ; 
and  the  man  who  instructs  you  not  to  believe  it,  instructs  you  not 
to  believe  any  thing.  A  number  of  cases  have  been  read  to  you, 
in  which,  by  an  extraordinary  combination  of  circumstances,  inno¬ 
cent  persons  have  been  convicted  of  murder,  and  executed.  Wheth¬ 
er  these  cases  be  true,  or  fictitious,  we  know  not.  But  we  are  not 
to  decide  upon  the  justice  of  the  decisions  in  these  cases  ;  we  are 
to  confine  ourselves  to  the  case  before  us. 

The  facts  have  been  so  distinctly  laid  before  you,  that  I  shall 
confine  myself  to  a  very  brief  review7  of  them. 

It  is  clearly  proved,  that  the  schooner  Plattsburgh,  in  the  latter 
part  of  June,  1816,  was  owned  by  Isaac  M’Kim,  a  citizen  of  the 
United  States,  residing  at  Baltimore — was  there  laden  with  a  val¬ 
uable  cargo  of  coffee,  and  upw  ards  of  forty  thousand  dollars  in  mo¬ 
ney — and  sailed  from  that  port,  on  the  first  part  of  July,  for  Smyr¬ 
na — that  William  Hackett  was  master,  Frederick  I.  Yeiser  first 


85 


mate,  Stephen  B.  Onion  second  mate,  and  Thomas  Baynard  supei 
cargo  ;  and  that  she  was  manned  with  a  crew  of  fourteen  men,  five 
of  whom  are  the  prisoners  at  the  bar.  It  is  in  evidence,  that 
when  she  arrived  off  Cape  Henry,  a  day  or  two  after  she  sailed, 
there  was  a  slight  disturbance  among  the  crew  ;  but  notiiing  mate¬ 
rial  took  place,  until  the  2 1st  of  July,  when  she  was  near  the  island 
of  St.  Mary.  And  here,  if  the  witnesses  are  to  be  believed,  a 
transaction  took  place,  as  horrible  and  as  bloody,  as  ever  was  laid 
open  in  a  court  of  justice.  It  appears  that  at  12  o’clock,  this  day, 
the  vessel  arrived  off  St.  Mary’s,  and  from  the  rate  of  her  sailing, 
must  have  passed  that  island  about  a  hundred  miles,  when  the  oc¬ 
currence  happened.  The  crew  were  divided  into  two  watches.  The 
chief  mate’s  watch  was  from  8  o’clock  in  the  evening  until  12.  To 
this  w  atch  belonged  White,  one  of  the  prisoners.  And  in  the  watch 
of  the  second  mate,  which  did  duty  from  12  to  4,  were  Williams 
and  Frederick,  two  more  of  the  prisoners.  When  the  hour  arrived 
for  relieving  the  first  watch,  Onion,  the  second  mate,  was  called. 
When  he  wrnnt  on  deck,  he  heard  Williams  cry  out  “  a  sail,  ho  !” 
He  asked  where  the  sail  was  ;  Frederick  said  if  he  w  ould  go  for¬ 
ward,  he  would  shew  it  to  him.  He  followed  Frederick  to  the  bow 
of  the  vessel,  and  there  met  the  first  mate,  and  ’while  looking  over 
the  bow  together,  they  each  received  a  blow  on  the  head,  w  hich 
brought  them  down  on  the  deck.  Onion  at  first  thought  the  blow 
was  from  the  foot  of  the  jib.  While  attempting  to  raise  himself  on 
his  hands  and  knees,  and  “  scuffling  to  windward,”  Williams 
caught  him  by  the  breast,  and  called  out,  u  here  is  one  of  the  dam¬ 
ned  rascals,  lend  me  a  hand  to  kill  him  at  the  same  time  he  heard 
the  first  mate  cry  murder.  He  received  a  blow,  from  some  person 
behind  him,  on  his  left  arm,  by  which  he  was  much  injured.  He 
then  heard  the  captain  call  out,  “  what  is  the  matter  forward  ?”  and  . 
those  who  were  about  Onion,  immediately  left  him,  and  sprang  to¬ 
wards  the  captain.  Onion  then  got  up,  and  made  for  the  compan¬ 
ion  way,  passing  by  a  man  with  an  axe  in  his  hand.  He  rushed 
into  the  cabin,  seized  a  bottle  of  whiskey  that  was  by,  and  threw 
himself  into  the  bread  locker.  In  the  cabin,  he  saw  the  supercar¬ 
go  rubbing  his  eyes,  having  just  got  up.  The  steward,  Samberson, 
was  then  lying  in  his  birth.  After  he  was  in  the  locker,  he  heard 
them  call  from  the  deck  to  the  supercargo  to  come  up.  The  su¬ 
percargo  said,  u  let  me  first  put  on  my  clothes  they  answered, 
ii  no,  no,  the  captain  wants  you  forward.”  He  then  heard  a  scuf¬ 
fle  on  the  deck.  Immediately  after  this,  the  steward  was  called 
up,  and  was  forcibly  dragged  upon  the  deck.  The  steward  was  or¬ 
dered  to  go  forward.  He  went,  and  looking  under  the  main  boom, 
he  saw  the  supercargo  lying,  stretched  at  his  full  length,  and  then 
saw  Rog  and  Williams  take  him  up  and  throw  him  ovefboard,  and 
heard  him  shriek,  after  he  wms  in  the  water  ;  and  since  then  he  has 
never  been  seen  nor  heard  of.  All  this  took  place  at  the  hour  of 
midnight,  when  the  heavens  were  shrouded  in  darkness,  and  the 
vessel  at  the  distance  of  a  hundred  miles  from  any  land.  No- .sail 


8t> 


was  in  fact  in  sight  at  the  time,  and,  without  doubt,  the  cry  of  a 
sail  was  only  a  part  of  the  machinery  employed,  the  better  to  effect 
the  horrid  purpose  of  the  murderers. 

The  counsel  for  the  prisoners  contend  to  you,  that  there  is  no 
evidence  of  the  actual  death  of  Baynard,  that  it  is  still  possible  he 
may  have  been  saved,  by  some  miraculous  interposition,  from  the 
devouring  waves  to  which  they  had  committed  him.  But  by  what 
spirit  of  the  deep  was  he  protected  ?  to  what  region  has  he  been 
conveyed?  He  has  gone,  Gentlemen,  you  will  think,  1  believe, 
to  that  region,  towards  which  we  are  all  of  us  advancing.  if 
you  are  satisfied  with  the  truth  of  the  evidence  presented  to  you, 
it  is  impossible  for  you  to  indulge  the  least  doubt  on  the  point  of 
his  actual  death.  In  no  case.can  you  arrive,  perhaps,  at  absolute 
certainty  of  the  death  of  an  individual.  There  alwa}rs  remains 
some  ground  for  the  conjectures  of  the  doubting.  They  may  say 
that  your  own  senses  are  not  always  sufficient  to  satisfy  you. 
Should  you  even  see  a  man  laid  out  in  his  coffin, you  may  yet  call 
to  mind,  that  there  have  been  instances  of  resuscitation,  which 
have  contradicted  the  tenor  of  human  experience.  But  we  must 
act  as  reasonable  men  on  reasonable  evidence;  and  in  this  case, 
that  can  leave  no  doubt  that  Baynard  is  dead.  I  now  proceed  to 
the  further  circumstances  of  the  case. 

After  the  perpetration  of  these  foul  murders,  Williams  ordered 
them  to  “bear  a  hand,”  crying  out,  “  the  ship  is  ours.”  The 
steward  was  then  permitted  to  go  below,  and  at  the  same  time 
Williams,  Frederick,  Rog,  and  White,  repaired  to  the  cabin  for 
the  purpose  of  seeking  Onion.  Some  one  asked  if  Onion  was  not 
overboard  with  the  rest;  Frederick  said  no,  “he  knew  where 
he  was,”  and  called  for  a  top-sail  brace,  as  he  said,  to  “  rouse  the 
damned  rascal  out.”  They  then  held  a  consultation,  to  determine 
whether  they  should  throw  Onion  overboard,  or  permit  him  to 
live.  Some  advised  to  the  one  course,  and  some  to  the  other. 
Frederick  said,  “  he  is  a  clever  fellow,  and  will  join  us,  and  take 
a  share  of  the  money  with  us — let  him  live  ;”  but  Peterson  cried 
out,  “  Damn  him,  he  is  one  of  the  officers,  let  him  go  overboard 
as  well  as  the  rest.”  To  this  Williams  replied,  with  a  degree  of 
humanity  but  little  consistent  with  the  rest  of  his  conduct,  “  No, 
no,  we  have  already  spilled  innocent  blood  enough  ;  let  him  live.” 
White  was  present  at  this  consultation,  if  Samberson  speaks  the 
truth  ;  but  he  said  nothing.  They  then  called  to  Onion,  to  come 
out,  and  gave  him  some  spirit,  and  appeared  to  amuse  themselves 
with  his  terrors  ;  and  left  him  in  the  cabin  the  remainder  of  the 
night.  It  was  now  agreed,  that  Stromer  should  act  in  the  capacity 
of  captain,  Williams  as  chief  mate,  and  that  Onion  should  continue  in 
his  forme^situation  of  second  mate.  Nothing  was  said  about  the 
former  captain  or  mate  until  the  next  morning.  At  4  o’clock  in 
the  morning,  Stromer  and  White  came  down  to  drink  grog  togeth¬ 
er.  White  asked  Stromer  where  he  meant  to  carry  the  vessel, 
and  proposed  to  carry  her  to  Brazil.  Stromer  replied  that  he 

\ 


87 


should  carry  her  lo  Norway;  and  said  that  he  could  there  con* 
ceal  her  among  the  rocks  and  smuggle  the  cargo  on  shore.  The 
cook  was  ordered  to  get  breakfast  early  the  next  morning  Wil¬ 
liams,  Stromer,  and  Onion  breakfasted  together,  and  were  tended 
by  the  Steward.  The  conversation  turned  upon  the  events  of  the 
preceding  night,  and  Williams,  who  bore  a  principal  partin  it, 
said  that  when  he  had  hold  of  the  captain  and  was  about  to  throw 
him  overboard,  the  captain  cried  out  to  him,  “  don’t  you  know  me, 
Bill  ?”  and  he  answered,  “  yes,  you  damned  rascal,  I  know  you 
well,  to  my  sorrow and  their  conversation  was  in  a  strain  of 
exultation,  as  if  they  had  accomplished  all  their  purposes.  Wil¬ 
liams  spoke  of  having  had  a  quarrel  with  the  captain  on  a  former 
voyage,  in  which  the  captain  threatened  to  shoot  him,  and  Wil¬ 
liams,  throwing  open  his  waistcoat,  dared  him  to  do  it,  but  said  that 
if  he  missed  him,  the  captain’s  life  would  pay  for  it ;  and  that  in 
consequence  of  this  occurrence,  he  had  always  since  retained  a 
grudge  against  the  captain.  He  also  stated,  that  he  and  Stromer 
had  formed  a  plan  for  poisoning  the  officers,  by  putting  poison 
into  their  coffee,  and  that  they  failed  in  it,  by  his  having  been 
called  by  the  mate,  as  he  was  attempting  to  throw  it  in.  The  truth 
of  this  acknowledgment  is  proved  to  you, gentlemen, by  the  circum¬ 
stance,  that  the  captain  and  supercargo  were  made  so  unwell  by 
the  coffee,  that  morning,  as  to  be  compelled  to  take  medicine. 
After  breakfast,  a  division  was  made  of  the  money.  It  appears 
that  White  passed  it  up  from  below  ;  it  was  divided,  by  the  means 
of  hats  and  a  tin  pot,  into  equal  portions,  and  each  of  the  crew, 
including  Samberson  and  Onion,  were  called  upon  to  take  their 
respective  shares.  Onion  says,  that  he  at  first  declined,  telling 
them,  that  he  was  satisfied  with  having  received  his  life,  and  did 
not  want  a  share  of  the  money,  but  he  was  ordered  to  take  it  ; 
which  he  then  did,  and  placed  it  in  an  open  trunk  in  the  cabin 
without  counting  it.  Samberson  states,  however,  that  he  did  not 
recollect  that  Onion  hesitated  to  receive  it  in  the  first  instance. 
This  however  does  not  necessarily  prove  a  contradiction  in  their 
evidence.  Onion  afterwards,  to  avoid  suspicion,  counted  his  mo¬ 
ney,  and  found  that  it  amounted  to  about  three  thousand  dollars. 
And  here  several  conversations  may  be  mentioned,  which  are 
testified  to  have  taken  place  between  different  individuals  of  the 
crew,  at  various  times,  in  the  course  of  the  voyage  to  Norway. 
It  is  testified  by  Onion,  that,  in  a  conversation  between  Smith  and 
Peterson,  Peterson  said  that  the  captain  “  caught  hold  of  his 
jacket  and  like  to  have  had  him  overboard and  Smith  said 
“  the  captain  also  caught  him  and  had  got  him  half  way  over 
the  rail,  and  like  to  have  served  him  in  the  same  way.”  At 
another  time,  Peterson,  talking  with  Smith  and  Johnson, 
said  that  the  mate,  in  going  overboard,  caught  hold  of  the 
guy  of  the  flying-jib-boom,  and  they  had  to  cut  it  off ;  and 
Onion  saw  blood  the  next  day  near  the  guy,  and  heard  Frederick 
say,  that  he  had  cut  his  thumb  there  ;  sp  that  it  would  appear  from 


88 


this,  that  Peterson  and  Frederick  had  the  principal  hand  in  throw¬ 
ing  over  the  mate.  It  is  also  stated  to  you,  that  Williams  told 
Onion,  that  he  and  Frederick,  at  eight  o’clock  in  the  evening,  had 
entered  into  an  agreement,  and  shaken  hands  upon  it,  that  they 
would  take  the  vessel  fiom  the  captain,  on  the  night  when  this 
transaction  took  place,  or  jump  overboard ;  and  that  they  had 
previous  to  this,  formed  a  plan  to  seize  the  officers  at  noon,  on 
the  same  day,  whilst  they  were  taking  the  sun,  and  send  them  off 
in  the  boat  to  St.  Mary’s,  but  that  their  hearts  failed  them.  This 
would  indeed  have  been  a  merciful  course,  and  it  is  deeply  to  be 
regretted  that  they  did  not  succeed  in  it;  they  would  thus  have 
saved  the  lives  of  the  three,  unfortunate  beings  who  were  subse¬ 
quently  destroyed.  Samberson,  states  to  you,  that  Rog,  who 
went  by  the  name  of  the  Yankee  Boy ,  the  day  after  the  death  of 
Baynard,  jumped  about  the  deck  and  cried  out  in  exultation,  “you 
now  see  what  a  vankee  boy  can  do.”  And  he  at  the  same  time 
boasted  that  he  struck  the  supercargo  on  the  head  with  a  stone 
tied  up  in  a  stocking,  and  knocked  him  down  on  the  deck.  Wil¬ 
liams  also  said,  at  another  time,  that  he  had  committed  three 
murders  before  ; — that  he  had  killed  a  man  in  South  America, 
and  a  woman  in  some  ether  place,  but  had  escaped  punishment ; 
and  Frederick  stated  that  this  was  the  fifth  time  he  had  been  en¬ 
gaged  in  the  like  transaction. 

After  the  fatal  transaction  of  the  22d,  the  vessel  made  her 
course  for  Norway.  She  was  carried  into  Cleveland,  a  small 
place  containing  about  60  houses,  near  Mandahl,  where  the  crew 
employed  themselves  in  smuggling  the  cargo.  Onion  testifies 
that  he  went  on  shore  but  once  during  that  time,  and  was  then 
narrowly  watched  by  Williams.  Samberson  was  permitted  to  go 
on  shore  frequently,  and  he  attempted  to  get  an  interview  with 
the  consul,  as. he  says,  in  order  to  make  a  disclosure;  but  as  the 
consul  was  not  in  town,  he  was  unable  to  effect  it.  On,  or  before 
her  arrival  in  Norway,  an  alteration  was  made  in  the  ship’s  pa¬ 
pers.  The  cargo,  instead  of  being  consigned  to  Smyrna,  now 
purported  to  be  consigned  to  Myers  and  Co.  at  Hamburgh ;  many 
of  the  leaves  of  the  log  book  were  cut  out,  and  the  log  book 
headed,  “  From  Baltimore  to  Bremen.”  After  staying  here  five 
days,  Williams,  Onion  and  Samberson  took  passage  to  Copenhagen. 
Williams  and  Onion  there  took  lodgings  in  the  same  house.  They 
refused  to  permit  Samberson  to  live  with  them  on  account  of  his 
colour.  About  fourteen  days  after  their  arrival  at  Copenhagen, 
Samberson  accidentally  met  Rog,  who  appeared  desirous  to  avoid 
him ;  but  he  made  himself  known,  and  went  with  him  to  his  lodg¬ 
ings.  Onion,  it  appears,  made  no  voluntary  disclosure,  until  he 
was  carried  before  the  police  ;  and  assigns  as  his  reasons,  that  he 
was  almost  constantly  in  a  state  of  intoxication,  and  was  a  stranger, 
ignorant  of  the  laws  of  the  country,  and  apprehensive  that  he 
might  subject  himself  to  punishment  as  well  as  the  others.  Wil¬ 
liams  and  Onion,  fearing  that  it  might  be  dangerous  to  continue 


89 


here  longer,  purchased  a  quantity  of  sugar  and  rum,  with  a  design 
of  going  to  Christiana  to  dispose  of  it,  and  procuring  a  vessel  to 
carry  them  from  thence  to  America.  Meanwhile  Samberson  was 
called  before  the  police,  and  there  made  a  full  disclosure.  In 
Consequence  of  which,  Williams  and  Onion,  who  were  upon  the 
point  of  quitting  Copenhagen,  were  arrested  upon  going  to  the 
consul’s  to  get  their  pass,  and  immediately  after,  Rog  was  taken 
up.  Mr.  De  la  Roche,  whom  you  have  seen  on  the  stand,  was 
despatched  by  Mr.  M’Kim,  the  owner  of  the  vessel  and  cargo,  in 
a  short  time  after  intelligence  was  received  of  the  mutiny,  to 
bring  home  the  schooner  and  such  part  of  the  property  as  he 
might  be  able  to  recover.  He  accordingly  went  to  Christiansand, 
and  there  recovered  the  vessel,  and  returned  with  her  to  Bal¬ 
timore. 

Such,  gentlemen,  are  the  outlines  of  the  material  facts  disclos¬ 
ed  in  the  testimony  which  has  been  produced  in  the  cause  before 
you.  If  these  facts  are  true,  they  present  one  of  the  most  bloody 
and  horrible  transactions  ever  recorded  in  the  annals  of  crime. 
And  what  reason  have  we,  gentlemen,  to  think  they  are  not  true  ? 
You  have  it  proved,  beyond  the  possibility  of  doubt,  that  the  ves¬ 
sel  sailed  from  Baltimore  with  a  valuable  cargo,  bound  to  Smyrna — 
that  Hackett  the  captain,  Yeiser  the  chief  mate,  and  Baynard  the 
supercargo,  were  on  board — that  she  never  reached  Smyrna,  but 
was  carried  into  Norway — that  her  cargo  was  there  sold,  or  other¬ 
wise  disposed  of — and  that  the  captain,  chief  mate,  and  supercar¬ 
go,  have  never  since  been  heard  of.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that 
some  persons,  either  the  officers,  or  the  crew,  ran  away  with  the 
vessel.  What  evidence  have  we  that  the  officers  abused  the 
confidence  reposed  in  them  by  their  employer?  they  have  never 
been  heard  of — not  one  of  them.  The  crew  have  not  told  us 
where  they  now  are.  We  cannot  trace  them;  and  yet  we  have 
been  able  to  follow  all  the  crew,  dispersed  as  they  have  been  in 
the  different  regions  of  the  world.  The  cargo  is  found  in  the 
possession  of  the  crew — the  clothes  of  the  officers  are  found  distri¬ 
buted  among  them.  Even  though  we  disbelieve  the  witnesses, 
Onion  and  Samberson — throw  their  testimony  out  of  the  case— 
with  these  facts  clearly  proved,  it  is  very  difficult  to  say  that  the 
crew  did  not  run  away  with  the  vessel ;  and  there  can  be  as  little 
doubt  that  the  officers  were  put  out  of  the  way  by  some  of  them. 
It  is  your  duty,  gentlemen,  and  your  privilege,  to  judge  of  the 
evidence,  but  it  is  undoubtedly  proper  for  the  Court,  who  must 
necessarily  have  much  more  experience  in  the  investigation  of 
facts,  to  assist  your  deliberations  by  placing  it  before  you  in  differ¬ 
ent  points  of  view.  You  are  told  by  the  counsel  for  the  prison¬ 
ers  that  Onion  and  Samberson  are  not  to  bh  believed,  because 
they  are  accomplices ; — an  accomplice  is  a  person  who  is  convicted 
as  such,  or  who  confesses  his  own  guilt,  and  receives  a  promise  of 
pardon,  on  condition  that  he  will  disclose  all  the  circumstances, 
in  order  to  convict  his  fellows  in  the  perpetration  of  the  crime. 

12 


90 


These  witnesses  do  not  come  under  this  description ;  they  have 
received  no  promise  of  pardon — they  deny  their  participation  in 
the  crime  for  which  the  prisoners  are  indicted.  They  are  com¬ 
petent  witnesses,  and  their  credit  is  to  be  weighed  by  you  like 
that  of  other  witnesses.  And  even  if  they  had  been  accomplices, 
acknowledging  their  own  guilt,  the  law  would  not  deem  them 
incredible  ;  on  the  contrary,  on  the  evidence  of  an  accomplice,  if 
believed,  the  law  justifies  a  jury  in  founding  a  conviction  ; — but,  if 
the  testimony  of  these  men  be  true,  thejr  are  not  accomplices. 
But,  it  is  also  said,  if  these  men  were  not  accomplices,  they  would 
have  informed  against  the  crew,  immediately  on  their  arrival  in 
port.  Gentlemen,  you  must  take  into  consideration  all  the  cir¬ 
cumstances. — Cleveland  is  a  small  place  ;  Onion  went  on  shore  but 
once — he  tells  you  he  was  intoxicated,  and  deranged  in  his  mind. 
Samberson,  though  frequently  on  shore,  says  that  he  could  not 
have  a  free  communication  with  the  consul — they  were  two  only 
against  a  great  number  of  desperate  men — the  rest  of  the  crew 
might  have  out-sworn  them  and  got  them  put  into  prison  them¬ 
selves,  or  have  destroyed  them.  These  motives  might  operate  dur¬ 
ing  their  stay  in  Norway.  At  Copenhagen,  the  mate  says  he  was 
intoxicated,  and  did  not  know  what  he  was  about.  Both  he  and 
Samberson  were  strangers  there,  unacquainted  with  the  laws,  and 
they  might  apprehend  personal  inconvenience  from  making  a  dis¬ 
covery.  The  counsel  say  likewise,  that  Onion  took  one  oath  on 
board  the  vessel,  which  he  has  broken,  and  therefore  would  be 
likely  to  disregard  another.  Who  would  refuse,  gentlemen,  to 
take  such  an  oath  under  such  circumstances,  to  preserve  his  life? 
And  who  would  hesitate  to  break  it,  when  his  life  was  out  of  dan¬ 
ger,  and  violated  justice  demanded  his  testimony?  The  sharing 
in  the  plunder  is  to  be  considered  a  part  of  the  same  transaction  ; 
it  was  by  compulsion,  or  under  the  dread  of  being  put  to  death. 
Another  objection  is,  that  the  testimony  of  Onion  does  not  agree 
with  that  of  Samberson.  Contradictions  no  doubt  diminish,  but 
they  do  not  necessarily  destroy  the  credibility  of  a  witness.  They 
may  be  immaterial,  or  arise  by  honest  mistake  or  forgetfulness. 
You  must  take  into  view  all  the  circumstances.  The  most  mate¬ 
rial  contradiction  pointed  out,  that  now  occurs  to  me,  relates  to 
the  mate’s  taking  his  share  of  the  money  with  reluctance.  But 
this,  in  fact,  is  not  a  contradiction.  Samberson  says  only,  that  he 
does  not  recollect  that  Onion  shewed  reluctance.  Another  in¬ 
stance  respects  Samberson’s  having  never  heard  White  express 
compunction,  or  sorrow,  for  the  proceedings  of  the  crew.  Here 
again,  there  is  no  positive  contradiction.  Samberson  may  not 
have  heard  the  conversation  ; — it  is  not  even  suggested  that  he 
was  present  at  it;  White  would  not  be  likely  to  converse  with  a 
man  of  colour.  Onion  likewise  does  not  recollect  seeing  White 
at  the  consultation ;  which  Samberson  says  was  the  case.  But, 
from  Onion’s  situation,  this  might  well  be,  and  yet  White  might 
have  been  there,  and  been  seen  by  Samberson.  If  the  story  of 


ei 


these  witnesses  were  intended  to  be  all  a  perjury,  one  would  ex- 
pect  that  th  y  would  have  seen  every  thing  very  particularly ; 
but,  on  the  contrary,  they  have  spoken  guardedly  and  cautiously. 
They  have  given  their  testimony  in  your  presence,  and  in  the 
presence  of  the  prisoners,  and  you  will  judge  from  the  manner, 
what  credit  is  due  to  it.  You  will  also  consider  whether  these 
men,  in  the  situation  in  which  they  were,  could  have  acted  other¬ 
wise  than  they  did. 

It  is  the  duty  of  the  court,  gentlemen,  to  state  the  laws  to  the 
jury.  We  are  not  unmindful  of  our  great  responsibility,  and  we 
are  willing  to- bear  it.  All  persons,  gentlemen,  who  are  concern¬ 
ed  in  a  conspiracy  to  commit  murder,  or  anj'  other  feiony,  wheth¬ 
er  they  are  present,  perpetrating  the  crime,  or  acting  or  counsel¬ 
ling  at  the  perpetration,  or  whether  they  stand  by,  acting  another 
part  in  aid  of  the  general  design,  are  deemed  in  law  equally  guil¬ 
ty.  And,  frequently,  the  immediate  actor  of  the  deed,  has  less 
moral  turpitude  than  the  secret  instigator.  For  instance,  suppose 
one  man  gives  poison  to  another,  to  administer  to  a  third  ;  and 
the  second  does  so,  not  knowing  it  is  poison :  common  sense  tells 
you  that  the  first  one  is  the  guilty  person.  In  the  present  cause, 
if  the  prisoners  at  the  bar  had  all  agreed  to  murder  Baynard, 
whether  they  were  all  present  at  the  time  of  his  murder,  and 
gave  the  blows,  or  assistant  in  throwing  him  overboard,  or  some 
of  them  were  acting  in  aid  of  the  general  design,  in  another  part 
of  the  ship,  at  the  time  when  he  was  thrown  overboard,  they  are 
all  deemed,  in  law,  guilty  of  the  crime.  So,  if  they  had  all  con¬ 
spired  feloniously  to  run  away  with  the  vessel,  without  intending 
to  shed  his  blood,  and  in  the  prosecution  of  that  design  Baynard 
came  to  his  death,  they  are  all  equally  guilty  of  murder.  For, 
where  the  design  is  to  commit  a  felony,  and  death  happens  in  the 
prosecution  of  it,  it  is  murder  in  all  the  confederates  who  carry 
k  into  effect,  although  the  death  happen  collaterally,  or  beside 
the  principal  design  ;  but,  if  it  is  within  the  scope  of  the  design 
to  accomplish  the  felony  by  the  death  of  any  opposing  parties,  it 
is,  a  fortiori ,  murder,  in  all  who  co-operate  in  the  design,  and  aid 
in  its  execution. 

In  the  present  case,  gentlemen,  it  is  beyond  a  question,  that  a 
felony  and  piracy  was  intended  to  be  committed,  and  that  some  of 
the  crew  had  formed  a  confederacy  for  that  purpose.  Let  us  now, 
for  a  moment,  consider  the  evidence  as  it  respects  the  prisoners 
severally.  It  is  testified  by  Onion,  that  Williams  was  on  deck, 
and  cried  out  a  sail,  when  no  sail  was  in  sight;  Samberson  says, 
that  he  assisted  one  of  the  men,  who  he  thinks  was  Rog,  in  throwr- 
ing  Baynard  overboard  ;  and  both  agree,  in  representing  him  to 
have  been  one  of  the  most  active  persons  in  the  proceedings  of 
the  22d  of  July.  Rog ,  Samberson  tells  you,  was  on  deck,  and 
boasted,  a  day  or  two  after,  that  he  struck  Baynard  on  the  head 
with  a  stone  in  a  stocking — Samberson  thinks  he  saw  him  throwing 
Baynard  overboard.  It  is  testified  of  Frederick  and  Peterson ,  that 


they  were  on  fleck,  and  bore  an  atrocious  part  in  the  transactions; 
that  they  acted  together,  in  throwing  the  chief  mate  overboard, 
and  that  Peterson  also  assisted  in  throwing  the  captain  overboard  ; 
and  that  they  were  present,  and  expressed  their  opinions,  in  the 
consultation  respecting  the  second  mate,  the  one  being  in  favor  of 
his  death,  and  the  other  of  his  life. 

These  four,  Williams,  Rog.  Frederick  and  Peterson,  we  re  there, 
visibly  engaged  in  the  scene  of  action,  as  avowed  confederates ; — 
and,  if  the  witnesses  are  to  be  believed,  there  can  be  no  doubt 
that  they  were  all  equally  guilty  of  the  murder  of  Baynard.  Let 
us  examine,  now, the  case  of  White,  which,  in  some  particulars,  is 
different  from  that  of  the  others.  It  is  said  by  Samberson,  that 
White  was  on  deck  when  the  mutiny  took  place,  and  assisted,  soon 
after,  in  the  management  of  the  vessel — that  he  was  present,  but 
not  doing  any  thing,  when  Baynard  was  thrown  overboard — that  he 
went  down  in  the  cabin  soon  after  to  drink  grog — that  he  was  pres¬ 
ent  at  the  consultation  about  Onion,  laughing  and  talking  with  the 
others.  This  last  fact  Onion  does  not  recollect.  I  have  told  you, 
gentlemen,  that  if  it  should  appear  to  you,  that  any  of  the  pris¬ 
oners  was  a  confederate  incite  plan  to  commit  the  murder, and  aid¬ 
ed  in  it,  that  he  is  guilty  of  the  murder,  even  though  another  per¬ 
son  indicted  the  fatal  blow,  or  threw  the  party  overboard.  In  re¬ 
gard  to  White,  what  grounds  have  we  to  believe,  that  he  was  not 
confederate  ?  It  is  your  duty  to  consider  all  the  circumstances  and 
weigh  them  deliberately.  In  the  first  place,  he  was  in  the  ship 
on  the  high  seas,  and  therefore  could  not  run  away,  if  he  wished 
to  do  so.  He  certainly  is  not  guilty  of  a  crime  in  being  on  board. 
He  might  also  assume  a  behaviour,  which  did  not  belong  to  him, 
in  order  to  save  his  life  at  this  critical  period.  Another  circum¬ 
stance  in  his  favor,  is  the  observation  he  afterwards  made,  which 
was  drawn  out  of  the  witness  by  a  question  put  by  the  court,  that 
he  was  innocent  of  the  murder,  and  would  never  be  concerned  in 
the  shedding  of  a  man's  blood, for  the  sake  of  money.  These  cir¬ 
cumstances  are  peculiar  to  White’s  case,  and  if  the  evidence  rest¬ 
ed  here,  it  would  be  difficult  to  adjudge  him  guilty  of  an  otfence, 
which  would  make  him  forfeit  his  life.  Against  this  evidence, you 
have  the  following  circumstances. — If  you  believe  Samberson, 
White  said  he  knew  of  the  plan  to  take  the  ship ,  previous  to  its  being 
put  in  execution ,  and  would  not  tell  of  it.  This  is  an  exceedingly 
strong  fact  against  him.  At  twelve  o’clock  on  the  21st,  the  ves¬ 
sel  was  under  the  government  of  her  proper  officers — there  were 
six  persons,  '^ast,  in  the  confidence  of  the  captain,  who  might 
have  secure-  rest,  had  White  revealed  the  conspiracy.*  Soon 
after  the  disturbance  on  deck, he  was  down  in  the  cabin, talking  and 
laughing.  Is  this  a  sign  that  he  did  not  participate  in  the  confed¬ 
eracy  ?  you  have  heard  the  testimony  about  his  slyness;  you  will 
give  to  it  such  weight  as  it  deserves.  If  you  believe  him  to  have 
been  a  confederate,  acting  his  part  in  the  general  design,  you  are 


93 


not  to  acquit  him,  because  his  crime  may  seem  to  he  less  heinous, 
in  a  moral  view,  than  that  of  the  other  prisoners. 

I  have  stated  the  case  to  you  strongly,  gentlemen, — it  is  my  ditty 
to  do  so.  The  situation  of  our  country  demands  it.  Piracy  has 
become  a  common  crime  on  the  ocean  and  is  daily  increasing  : — 
when  murder  stalks  abroad  unpunished, it  encourages  the  vindictive 
passions  of  men  to  break  out  into  acts  of  violence,  endangers  the 
public  safety,  and  brings  into  contempt  the  administration  of  pub¬ 
lic  justice.  You  will  not  suffer  yourselves  to  be  influenced,  gen¬ 
tlemen,  by  any  feelings  of  compassion.  The  prerogative  of  mer¬ 
cy  is  not  lodged  with  us. — It  is  in  other  hands.  If  according  to 
the  law  and  the  evidence,  the  prisoners  are  guilty  of  the  crime  set 
forth  in  the  indictment,  you  are  bound  to  find  them  so — you  have 
no  discretion.  And  let  me  remark,  that  it  is  a  false  idea  of  mercy, 
to  suppose  it  consists  in  sparing  the  guilty ;  such  mercy  is  cruelty  to 
your  fellow  men.  and  to  your  country.  It  is  your  province,  gentle¬ 
men,  to  judge  of  the  evidence  submitted  to  you,  and  let  your  ver¬ 
dict  be  such  as  your  duty  demands,  and  your  conciences  will  ap¬ 
prove. 

After  the  cause  was  committed  to  the  jury,  the  court  was  ad¬ 
journed  for  about  an  hour, until  4  o’clock  in  the  afternoon,  at  which 
time,  upon  the  opening  of  the  Court,  the  jury  gave  their  ver¬ 
dict,  that  John  Williams,  John  P.  Rog,  Francis  Frederick,  and 
Nils  Peterson,  alias  Nils  Peterson  Fogelgren,  are  GUILTY  ;  and 
that  Nathaniel  White,  alias  Nathaniel  White  Glass,  is  NOT 
GUILTY. 

The  Court  was  then  adjourned  until  the  next  morning  at  nine 
o’clock. 

WEDNESDAY,  DEC.  30. 

At  nine  o’clock,  John  Williams,  John  P.  Rog,  Francis  Freder¬ 
ick, and  Nils  Peterson, alias  Nils  Peterson  Fogelgren,  were  brought 
into  court,  and  set  to  the  bar. 

Immediately  after  the  opening  of  the  court,  the  District  At¬ 
torney  stated  to  the  court,  that  the  prisoners  at  the  bar  had  been 
indicted,  by  the  Grand  Jury  for  the  District  of  Massachusetts,  for 
the  murder  of  Thomas  Baynard,  on  the  22d  July,  1816,  upon  the 
high  seas — that  they  had  pleaded, severally, Not  Guilty — that  they 
were  first  brought  into  this  district,  after  the  commission  of  the 
crime  alleged — that  they  had  been  tried, by  an  impartialPetit  Jury 
of  their  country,  and  had  been  assisted,  in  their  defence,  by  able 
and  eloquent  counsel,  assigned  them  by  the  court — that  the  jury 
had  returned  a  verdict, that  they  are,  severally, guilty  of  the  crime 
laid  in  the  indictment — and  that  the  punishment  of  that  crime,  by 
our  laws,  is  death. 

He  then  moved  the  court  to  pass  sentence  upon  the  prisoners. 

The  court  then  asked  the  prisoners,  severally,  if  they  had  any 
reasons  to  offer,  why  sentence  should  not  be  passed  upon  them. 


94 


Williams  then  addressed  the  court  in  a  desultory  speech,  mbro- 
k^p  English,  but,  in  general,  intelligible,  with  something  of  that 
rude  eloquence,  which  we  often  find  in  men  of  uncultivated  minds, 
wrhen  under  powerful  excitement.  We  do  not  pretend  to  follow 
his  words  exactly,  in  our  report  of  it. 

J  ohn  Williams. 

Gentlemen , 

I  was  born  in  Chazv,  in  the  state  of  Vermont,  about  thirteen 
miles  from  Plattsburgh,  of  respectable  parents.  I  passed  nine 
years  of  my  youth  at  the  college  of  Montreal.  At  the  end  of  this 
period  I  returned  to  my  father’s.  As  he  was  not  a  man  of  large 
property,  he  told  me  1  must  do  something  to  get  my  living.  I  ac¬ 
cordingly  entered,  as  an  attorney’s  clerk,  with  Mr.  Ross,  a  lawyer 
at  Montreal.  It  was  not  long,  before  I  got  tired  of  this  business, 
and  I  made  up  my  mind  to  follow  the  seas.  I  made  one  voyage 
with  Capt.  Hackett,  before  I  sailed  wuth  him  in  the  schooner 
Plattsburgh.  He  was  a  haughty  and  tyrannical  man,  and  in  the 
course  of  the  voyage,  we  had  a  quarrel  together.  Capt.  Hackett 
was  very  angry,  and  threatened  to  shoot  me  with  a  pistol  he  had 
in  his  hand.  I  opened  my  bosom,  and  said,  “  shoot  ;  but  if  you 
miss  me,  I’ll  be  damned  if  I  miss  you.”  I  was  unwilling  after  this 
to  go  a  second  voyage  w  ith  him  ;  but  he  told  me  Daniel  Went  was 
going  in  the  Plattsburgh,  who  had  been  an  old  shipmate  of  mine, 
and  so,  for  company’s  sake,  I  agreed  to  enter  on  board  the  Platts¬ 
burgh. 

We  sailed  from  Baltimore  on  the  first  day  of  July,  1816,  for 
Smyrna,  with  a  cargo  of  coffee,  and  about  $40,000.  We  had  some 
difficulties  in  the  beginning  of  the  voyage  ;  and  Capt.  Hackett’s 
behavior  was  such,  that  some  of  the  crew  said  they  could  stand 
it  no  longer.  On  the  19th,  Stromer  told  me  of  a  plan  they  had 
formed,  to  throw  the  captain,  supercargo,  and  two  mates,  over¬ 
board.  He  said  he  had  been  a  captain  of  a  vessel  five  years  out 
of  New  York,  and  four  years  out  of  England,  and  he  could  navi¬ 
gate  our  vessel  to  any  port  where  we  should  choose  to  take  her.  He 
wanted  me  to  join  them,  but  I  told  him  I  would  not ;  he  then 
called  me  a  coward  ;  I  told  him,  “no,  I  was  as  good  a  man  as  ever 
stepped  in  his  shoes.”  On  the  20th,  Stromer  told  me  they  had 
changed  the  plan ;  he  said,  he  knew  we  should  soon  be  off  St. 
Mary’s  ;  and  they  intended  to  bind  the  officers,  all  except  one, 
and  put  them  in  the  boat,  and  to  put  the  one,  that  was  not  bound, 
into  the  boat  last,  that  he  might  untie  the  others,  and  so,  let  them 
make  the  best  of  their  way  to  St.  Mary’s.  But  Stromer  after¬ 
wards  thought  he  should  not  have  time  to  escape  the  danger  of 
pursuit,  and  this  plan  failed.  Stromer  then  returned  to  his  former 
plan,  and  asked  me,  on  the  evening  of  the  20th,  if  it  should  be 
put  in  execution  that  night ;  I  said  to  him,  “  do  not  say  any  thing 
more  to  me  about  it ;  I  see  you  wmnt  to  be  the  downfall  of  me  : 
if  you  say  any  thing  more  to  me,  I  will  strike  you — and  1  will 


95 


go  further.”  On  the  21st  we  passed  St.  Mary’s.  The  whole  of 
these  transactions  were  to  be  dropped,  and  nothing  was  to  be  done. 
On  the  same  night,  about  half  past  12,  1  heard  a  man  from  for¬ 
ward  cry  out,  “a  sail  forward.”  Not  knowing  that  these  trans¬ 
actions  were  to  take  place,  1  passed  the  word  to  Mr.  Onion.  The 
two  mates  jumped  forward,  and  I  went  forward  to  see  if  there 
was  a  sail.  1  then  heard  Stromer  say,  “  strike  the  demned  ras¬ 
cals.”  Both  the  mates  were  knocked  down.  Stromer,  and  some 
others,  imrnedietely  threw  Yeiser  overboard.  Mr.  Onion  was 
struck  with  an  axe  by  Raineaux,  and  I  being  near  on  the  star¬ 
board  side,  without  any  weapon,  went  to  help  Mr.  Onion  up, 
without  any  thought  of  hurting  him.  After  the  vessel  was  in  pos¬ 
session  of  the  crew,  Stromer  said,  “well,  Williams,  we  have  done 
without  you.”  Stromer  told  me  I  must  he  his  mate  ;  I  said  1  would 
not.  The  crew  voted  that  I  should  he,  and  then  I  accepted  the 
appointment.  When  they  talked  of  killing  Mr.  Onion,  1  said, 

“  for  God’s  sake,  Stromer,  do  not  shed  any  more  innocent  blood.” 
Mr.  Onion  was  drunk  when  he  came  out  of  the  locker ;  and  he 
drank  some  spirit  after  he  came  out,  and  was  not  at  all  fright¬ 
ened.  He  was  very  much  given  to  liquor.  Mr.  Onion  told 
'  me  I  had  saved  his  life.  He  asked  why  they  did  not  tell 
him  they  were  going  to  take  the  vessel  ;  he  said,  he  would 
have  joined  in  the  plan  with  all  his  heart.  And  he  said 
he  would  shew  them  where  the  money  was  ;  which  he 
did.  And  he  took  an  axe  and  broke  open  the  boxes  of  money 
himself."  There  were  19  bags  in  the  boxes,  and  each  person  took 
a  bag,  and  the  remaining  bags  were  emptied  into  a  trunk,  and  the 
money  measured  in  a  tin  pot.  Mr.  Onion  took  his  share  without 
any  reluctance.  Mr.  Onion  helped  too  in  bringing  up  the  money  ; 
and  this  is  the  lame  arm  that  he  could  not  use  for  a  fortnight  1 
Mr.  Onion  shewed  me  how  to  keep  the  log-book.  He  altered 
the  letters  ;  and  he  did  duty  during  the  whole  passage  as  second 
mate.  I  am  wholly  innocent  of  the  .murder  of  Mr.  Baynard,  and 
of  any  other  murder.  I  gave  Mr.  Onion  an  account  of  some  mur¬ 
der,  committed  in  places  where  1  had  been,  and  he  has  laid  them 
upon  me  ;  which  is  all  false.  1  have  a  free  heart,  and  I  speak 
the  truth,  the  same  as  if  I  were  going  to  die  the  next  minute. 
So  far  from  being  guilty  of  murder,  I  have  saved  the  lives  of  two  - 
persons,  and  Mr.  Onion  is  one.  After  the  vessel  was  taken,  we 
went  to  Cleveland,  a  place  one  or  two  miles  from  Mandahl, 
Stromer  went  on  shore,  and  made  an  agreement  for  the  sale  of 
some  part  of  the  coffee,  and  he  said  it  was  to  be  smuggled  ;  and 
v  told  me  to  be  ready  to  deliver  it,  when  a  boat  should  come  along 
side  between  12  and  1  o’clock  at  night.  At  that  time  a  boat 
came,  with  a  letter  from  Mr.  Stromer  to  deliver  56  hags  Mr. 
Onion  helped  in  getting  it  upon  deck.  There  were  two  custom 
house  officers  on  board  ;  hut  we  treated  them  civilly,  and  made 
them  drunk,  and  got  them  asleep,  so  that  we  loaded  the  boat 


96 


with  interruption.  The  next  day,  Stromer  told  me,  he  hac 
so) 1  *he  cargo,  and  "ave  me  the  same  orders  as  before.  Thf 
last  i  a  Cleveland  apt.  1  island  came  on  board,  with  police 

officei  .  ..  .  s’.id  the'  1  orders  to  carry  the  vessel  to  Mandahl 
along  side  the  Amen  consul’s  wharf.  I  objected,  and  told 

them  the  captain  was  hore,  and  I  could  not  let  the  vessel  gc 

without  his  orders  ;  bi  ley  obliged  me  to  submit  Mr.  Onior 
then  became  alarmed,  .  J  asked  me  what  was  to  be  done  ;  anc 
he  proposed  taking  j  ge  to  Copenhagen,  which  we  agreed 
upon.  Samberson  went  with  us.  On  the  passage,  the  captair 
told  us  he  was  afraid  to  land  us,  because  we  had  not,  either  o 
us,  any  pass  ;  and  we  agreed  to  say,  that  I  had  them  all  to  keep 
aud  lost  them.  So,  when  we  got  to  Copenhagen,  we  went 
the  police  office,  and  told  the  police  officers  how  it  was,  ai 
they  treated  us  politely,  and  said  there  was  nothing  out  of  th 
svay.  They  said  something  about  fining  us  thirty  dollars,  fo, 
losing  our  passes  ;  but  they  said,  as  we  were  Americans,  th < 
would  not  insist  upon  it.  We  then  went  to  board  with  a  Capta 
Nelson.  Mr.  Onion  said  he  was  too  proud  to  live  with  a  dai 
negro,  and  Samberson  went  somewhere  else  to  live.  Onion 
lost  his  protection,  and  asked  me,  on  the  passage  to  Copenhe 
to  let  him  have  Mr.  Yeiser's;  which  I  gave  him,  and 
passed  under  Mr.  Yeiser’s  name  at  Copenhagen.  On  the 
the  second  day  at  Copenhagen,  we  went  to  Mr.  Sabie,  the  Ameri 
can  Consul,  and  told  him  we  were  Americans;  he  asked  us  for  oui 
protections,  and  said,  he  could  not  look  at  them  at  that  moment 
and  we  left  them  with  him.  After  several  days,  Mr.  Onion  says 
“Williams,  we  must  be  off  as  soon  as  possible.”  I  told  him  I  ( 
been  looking  out  for  a  vessel  for  England,  but  could  not  find  a  ,y 
The  next  day,  I  told  him  I  had  agreed  to  freight  a  small  vessel 
and  clear  out  for  Norway,  but  intending  to  go  to  England.  Mr 
Onion  agreed  to  join  with  me.  We  made  a  bargain  with  Captaii 
Nelson,  to  put  the  worth  of  two  thousand  dollars  on  board,  oi 
freight ;  and  we  were  to  give  him  3000  rix  dollars  to  land  us  it 
England.  Every  thing  was  got  ready,  and  we  went  to  the  con 
sill’s  to  get  our  protections  again.  The  consul  told  us,  that  w< 
were  there  described  as  sailors.  We  answered,  that  we  hai 
been  sailors,  but  that  we  had  changed  our  profession 
He  then  gave  us  a  letter,  which  he  said  we  must  carrj 
to  the  police  office,  because  we  were  Americans.  Oui 
protections,  he  said,  were  inside.  We  went  to  the  police  of 
fice,  and  they  first  took  Mr.  Onion  into  a  room, and  examined  him 
and  then  they  took  me,  and  examined  me  ;  and  they  told  me,  mj 
story  and  my  partner's  did  not  agree.  The  consul,  in  bis  letter 
told  the  police  to  arrest  us.  Samberson  was  not  at  the  police  of 
fice,  at  this  time.  Mr.  Onion  and  myself  were  kept  in  separati 
rooms.  The  next  morning,  we  were  examined  again,  and  Sam 
berson  was  there  ;  and  the  police  officers  told  us  all  these  transac 
tions;  and  by  that  reason,  I  knew  that  Samberson  had  turnef 
State’s  evidence. 


